Duncan Philps-Tate

The Slave Trade Reparations Trap Is Already Set On Tuesday, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution demanding that Britain and other former colonial powers enter into "good-faith dialogue on reparatory justice" for the transatlantic slave trade. It passed 124 to three. Britain abstained. The government called this a principled stand. James Kariuki, Britain's chargé d'affaires at the UN, said the UK "continues to disagree with fundamental propositions of the text." Strong words. The problem is that this government has already demonstrated, in precise detail, exactly how much those words are worth. The man who championed this cause from the backbenches is now Deputy Prime Minister. In 2018, Lammy told Parliament he wanted not just an apology but reparations. In 2020, he said the process of "repairing" Britain's colonial past was "obviously financial." He is now the second most powerful figure in the government. Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, said that same year that there was "a moral and legal" case for compensation. These are not old positions they have repudiated. They are positions they have declined to retract. The African Union's legal strategy is no secret. Their experts plan to seek an ICJ advisory opinion establishing reparations as a matter of international obligation. They chose this route because it worked. A previous ICJ opinion on Chagos prompted Starmer to hand over £30 billion of British sovereign territory rather than "break international law." The reparations movement noted the outcome. Tuesday's resolution is the first brick in the same foundation. The abstention is not a defence. It is a waiting room. Look at who voted in favour. China. Iran. Russia. India. This is the moral coalition that has appointed itself arbiter of Britain's historical guilt. China, which runs the largest forced labour system currently operating on earth. Iran, whose government funds proxy militias and whose record on human rights requires no elaboration. Russia, prosecuting a war of territorial conquest in Europe. These governments did not vote yes because they have thought seriously about Atlantic slavery. They voted yes because a financially and legally weakened Britain serves their interests, and because Western self-flagellation is a gift that keeps giving. The resolution contains a revealing admission. Its supporters openly ranked the transatlantic trade as more grave than the Arab slave trade, which ran for 1,300 years and took millions of Africans across the Sahara and Indian Ocean. The reason given: scale and duration. By that measure, the Arab trade should face equal scrutiny. It does not. The resolution targets Western nations and leaves others untouched. Some historical criminals are in the dock. Others helped write the charges. The US representative said so plainly. He rejected the idea of ranking atrocities by political convenience and accused the resolution's backers of using history as a weapon. Only the United States, Israel, and Argentina voted against. Britain could not manage even that. There is a pattern here that is no longer possible to mistake for coincidence. Gibraltar. Chagos. And now this. Each time, the same sequence: international legal pressure applied, ministers express disagreement, then Britain writes the cheque. Starmer did not create the reparations movement. But he handed it its proof of concept. The arguments against reparations are well-rehearsed and decisive. The question is whether a government containing David Lammy and Lord Hermer has the will to make them. When the ICJ opinion arrives, and the Foreign Office begins its familiar audit of what international law requires, that question will answer itself. "The arguments against reparations are well-rehearsed and decisive. The question is whether a government containing David Lammy and Lord Hermer has the will to make them."

@jhall_m25 @SimonDanczuk @SolitaryWitch24 More likely to be in Davy Jones's locker by now

@SimonDanczuk @SolitaryWitch24 I wouldn't be surprised if the mobile phone is still in McSweeney's possession

Anyone reading the transcript will conclude McSweeney deliberately obfuscated, lied about location, avoided mentioning Downing Street, and failed to say there was sensitive information on the phone. The British public are being had by Starmer and Labour. thesun.co.uk/news/38627793/…

Spanish girl gets brutally gang-raped by migrants, ends up paralyzed and developing severe PTSD. The Spanish government offers her assisted suicide as a solution to all of those problems. IDK if that counts as a metaphor because they're doing it literally.

Everything Cabinet Minister Reed says is in this interview is untrue. Everything.

Martin's ancestors have been watching for some time. They would like it noted, for the record, that they are not happy. 7:00am - Martin has a low-fat yoghurt. The fat has been removed and replaced with modified maize starch, pectin, and acesulfame potassium. His great-great-grandmother, who churned butter for a living in a farmhouse in Tipperary, makes a noise that has no translation in modern English. 7:30am - Martin has a bowl of bran flakes with skimmed milk. His ancestor from the Bronze Age, who ate organs, bone marrow, and rendered fat from large ruminants, sits down heavily and puts his face in his hands. 9:00am - Martin's mid-morning snack is a rice cake. It has 28 calories. His Viking ancestor, who was built like a wardrobe and ate herring, mutton tallow, and fermented dairy, stares at the rice cake with an expression of profound anthropological grief. 12:00pm - Lunch is a chicken salad with fat-free dressing. Martin has removed the skin from the chicken. He has removed the only part of the chicken that contains any meaningful fat-soluble nutrition. His grandmother, who grew up eating dripping on toast and died at 91 with no metabolic disease, watches in silence. 3:00pm - Martin has a 97-calorie cereal bar. His Palaeolithic ancestor does not know what a cereal bar is. He does not need to. He can see what it is doing to Martin's waistline compared to what it is doing to his mood. He files this information. 6:00pm - Dinner: lean mince (5% fat), brown pasta, and a tomato sauce from a jar. Martin has tracked all of this in My Fitness Pal. He is 14 calories under his goal. He is also, by any sensible hormonal reading, still hungry. 8:00pm - Martin has a low-fat ice cream. His ancestors, collectively, watch him eat a product that is technically both a food and an industrial experiment, and they decide, as a group, to stop watching for the evening. 9:30pm - Martin cannot sleep. He is thinking about food. He has been thinking about food since approximately 11am. His ancestors are not thinking about food. They are thinking about other things. Martin's ancestors were, on the whole, significantly leaner. This is the part Martin finds hardest to explain.

Your ignorance is staggering The reason the North Sea is declining so fast is excess taxation. More taxes will simply increase our reliance on imports Producing more gas definitely will reduce energy costs because it will displace more expensive LNG reducing the number of days LNG sets the price UK gas prices at a discount to TTF (the main European benchmark). Increasingly production will widen this margin Increased production delivers more tax revenues both from the producers and the huge UK based supply chains that support them as well as supporting thousands of well paid jobs. This additional income could be used to fund your renewables subsidies and cuts in fuel duty It's not true that new production will take 5 years to deliver. Jackdaw and Rosebank could be up and running in months And decline does not mean it's not worth bothering with. On day 2 of production a field is in decline but only an idiot would use that as a reason to close it Norway has made major discoveries adjacent to the UK sector in the past year. These reservoirs almost certainly extend into the UKCS. There is plenty more oil and gas to be had Our production is also cleaner than imports It's bizarre to argue against it

🚨Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh raises a point of order about Keir Starmer NEVER answering questions at PMQs. Lindsay Hoyle says there is nothing he can do. NONSENSE! He can pause proceedings and ask Keir Starmer to answer, but he *never* does. ABSOLUTELY USELESS!

Is David Lammy aware there are quotes extolling the ancient rights of Britons to trial by jury *on the windows of his actual office*?

So this is the sequencing: a) 11 September, Mandelson resigns b) 11 September - 13 October, No.10 start putting together strategy for dealing with Tory demand for messages between Mandelson/McSweeney c) 20 October, McSweeney reports phone stolen. All messages reportedly lost

If you were designing a country from scratch specifically to produce ruminants, you would design Britain. You would start with the rain. Specifically, you would arrange for it to fall constantly, reliably, and with a commitment that suggests the sky has a personal stake in the outcome. Not the dramatic rainfall of somewhere interesting, not monsoons or thunderstorms, just a grey, purposeful, relentless dampness that keeps the grass alive in February when nothing else wants to be. Then you'd do the soil. You'd make most of it thin, acidic, rock-full, and nitrogen-poor: genuinely terrible for crops, genuinely perfect for grass, which evolved to grow in exactly this kind of neglected substrate. You'd arrange for this poor soil to sit underneath the rain for ten months of the year and produce a sward so dense and permanent that it becomes, effectively, a biological solar panel. Converting rainfall and thin soil into nutrition via a process so efficient it looks like magic when you trace it. Then you'd add hills. Not useful hills. Not mining hills or strategic hills. Just relentlessly inconvenient hills: too steep for tractors, too wet for wheat, too windy for anything requiring human patience. Perfect, in other words, for an animal that turns its back to the weather and grazes. Then you'd add the cow. The cow would be built for the rain. Deep-bodied, thick-skinned, four stomachs, rumen full of organisms that eat the grass that uses the rain that falls on the soil that goes nowhere useful. Britain is not a country that happens to have cows. Britain is a country that the cows ordered. The rest of us are tenants.

It’s almost as if McSweeney deliberately misleading the police call handler to sow confusion. Says Belgrave Street, not Road. When call handler thinks it’s Belgrave Street in the East End and mentions Stepney, McSweeney does not correct the handler. Indeed he then confirms the thief turning at Stepney Green Park when the handler mentions that — knowing full well that couldn’t be true.

Andrew's not exaggerating. There's some real stink here. I do a lot of work in the film industry and the readout from the 999 call? Stinks like a badly written script. A script written for the wrong location. Just stop and think for a moment.... If you are describing someone 'running off' in London do you say they... 'Ran North' Or would you say they... 'Ran off up (name) street' Nobody says 'North' and we don't say it because unlike in the States we don't have a system of 'Blocks'. Yet McSweeney used the word 'Blocks' several times. Nobody does that either. And then, on top of what Andrew has pointed out there's all this too.... Everything about this call is wrong. Everything about the story is off. And the mishaps? They only benefit one person. Read the transcript (in the replies) The location handling is messy but in a revealing way. McSweeney says... 'Belgrave Street in Westminster' Then later confirms 'yeah' when the call handler repeats 'Belgrave Street'. (Classic evasion / content with the error) Even though we now know it was Belgrave Road. Then the conversation drifts into Stepney /Stepney Green because the wrong address has already seeded the entire exchange. What’s interesting is that he doesn’t correct that mistake. I think he wanted it. Note how he then seems to try to steer back descriptively.... 'let me tell you where I got to' But he never gives the sort of decisive.... 'no, no, you’ve got the wrong bit of London' response you'd expect from someone familiar with the city and trying to recover his own government mobile device. The call has a strange mixture of vaguenes and precision. That's why I say it feels scripted. He’s vague about the phone model... Vague about CCTV. Vague about the exact route. Vague about the address he’s staying at. But then precise about 'north', About 'blocks' and '23 minutes past' A flustered caller would be vague throughout. A composed one is usually clearer throughout. He was both. I think it was an act. I think he knew what to say. I believe he got luckier than he expected. And it's starting to 'stink' like a cover-up.

@JChimirie66677 This shows that democracy is dead. Politicians feel they are free to disregard and reverse massive referendum decisions as it suits them, just by declaring they can't be trusted - whatever that means. Add to that Labour's lies in their manifesto and it's broken.

They Never Accepted Brexit. Now They're Reversing It In her interview with The Economist, Rachel Reeves said: "If we could go back in time I would have voted again to Remain. I wish we had voted to Remain." She is not a minister reluctantly implementing a democratic result she inherited. She is a minister who never accepted it and is now in a position to reverse it. Everything she has said this week flows from that position: the claim of economic damage, the insistence that Brexit is the exception rather than the norm, the promise of gains through closer alignment. This is not dispassionate analysis. It is a settled conviction finally given power. Starmer will use the King's Speech in May to introduce legislation bringing 76 EU directives back onto the UK statute book. The government calls this technical alignment. Lord Frost, who negotiated Britain's departure, calls it what it is: subordination. The bill will make EU laws applicable in Britain without Parliament having any meaningful say in shaping them. The scope is wide; food standards, pesticides, animal health, and the regulatory framework governing genetically modified organisms. That last area cuts straight through one of the few clear gains ministers themselves once claimed for Brexit: the freedom to set our own approach to gene editing. Bringing those rules back under EU alignment contradicts that position directly, and no one in government has explained why. Peter Kyle made the position plain. The government's red lines on the single market and customs union apply to "the moment we're in". Not permanent. Not binding. A holding position. Chris Bryant went further, calling the 2016 referendum a pack of lies and refusing to rule out a rejoin pledge. Sadiq Khan has already called for Labour to fight the next election on a commitment to full membership. Within Labour, the direction of travel is not debated. It is assumed. Downing Street rejected Khan's demand. But it's worth looking at what that rejection actually said. The Prime Minister's spokesman confirmed the red lines stand for now, while also stating that where alignment serves the national interest it will be pursued and that the prize is considerable. The denial and the programme sit side by side, delivered in the same breath. That is not a government holding a line. That is a government managing a timetable. The Cabinet Office is already reviewing automotive and chemicals for the next wave of EU law adoption. The agrifood bill is described as the first in a series of sector-wide deals. The summit planned for the tenth anniversary of the Brexit vote in June is the intended moment for the food and agriculture agreement to be concluded. Sector by sector, law by law, the architecture is being rebuilt. The only question left is pace. Labour's 2024 manifesto was explicit. No return to the single market. No return to the customs union. No freedom of movement. That promise has now been exposed for what it was: not a commitment but a lie, used to neutralise opposition long enough to win the election. Kyle has said the red lines are temporary. Bryant has said the referendum cannot be trusted. Reeves has said she wishes it had gone the other way. The intent is no longer hidden. It is stated plainly, on the record. If the government has stopped pretending, the question is simple. When does the opposition stop pretending too? "Chris Bryant went further, calling the 2016 referendum a pack of lies and refusing to rule out a rejoin pledge."

The puzzzle is... Why on earth did they decide to come here, when there are 60 Muslim countries where their beliefs would fit in perfectly Oh ! Possibly the easy money ?

@MaxE2review Doesn't look like a minority of locals, does it? All very pleased indeed.

Footage from Oct 7, showing the body of one of the vast number of young jewish girls who’d just been murdered (many after having been raped) being paraded through the streets as large Palestinian crowds shriek with joy and yell ‘Allahu akhbar!’ And while this massive medieval atrocity was - literally - in the process of happening, Western streets packed out with Muslim fanatics who cheered on the massacre of infidels, desecration of corpses, seizing of babies as hostages to murder in tunnels, etc, and immediately screamed ‘genocide’ at Israel (reminder: this was *before* Israel had responded). Western academics called it, quote, ‘exhilarating’ and hyper-woke journalists at papers like Novara labelled it a ‘day of celebration’ (quote). Mothin Ali, the man who is now the deputy leader of the fastest growing ‘progressive’ party in Britain, posted using Hamas’ codename for the attack in Arabic and praised it as a ‘Hamas fight back’ - shortly afterwards he was *promoted*. His party members now shove ‘Israeli genocide’ and ‘Islamophobia’ into almost every single statement they make on any issue. No matter how relentless and hysterical the pro-pal/pro-Islamist propaganda machine is, these facts are seared into the historical record. And they speak of a profound sickness in parts of our social fabric (which, in large part, we have imported).

I eat my steak with gratitude. A living animal gave its life so I could have the most bioavailable protein on Earth, a complete amino acid profile, B12, zinc, iron, creatine, and enough saturated fat to keep my brain functioning at full capacity. I'm aware of this. I appreciate it. I don't take it for granted. Meanwhile the vegan is eating a lentil salad, absolutely beaming with moral superiority, while having given no thought whatsoever to the mice shredded by the combine harvester, the birds killed by the pesticides, the hedgehogs crushed by the tractor, the insects obliterated by the fungicide, and the topsoil that took three hundred years to form and will be gone in another fifty. The cow died once. The field dies a little every harvest. But yes. The steak is the ethical problem.

The moment you finally realise you’re leading the most authoritarian government in our country’s history: 1️⃣ Introducing an official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” that silences legitimate criticism of religion — 18 years after Parliament abolished such laws. 2️⃣ Removing the right of most defendants to have a jury trial, in the biggest assault on English liberty in over 800 years. 3️⃣ Requiring pub landlords to monitor customers’ private conversations to protect staff from remarks, comments, or jokes they may find “offensive”. 4️⃣ Clamping down on lawful social media posts, arresting an Irish comedian for gender-critical tweets and even threatening to ban access to X in the UK. It’s not a great look, is it, Prime Minister…

Shame on Wes Streeting for his disgusting attack on Reform. The thought of Reform winning in Wales “sends a shiver down my spine”. Labour is going to be kicked out of Wales, Wes. If any party is “fuelling a tide of racism” it’s Labour fuelling antisemitism to appease its Muslim vote.

Britain is 110% self-sufficient in lamb. Let that sink in for a moment. Not "pretty good." Not "mostly fine." One hundred and ten percent. We grow more than we eat and export the rest. We have done this on permanent upland pasture that cannot be used for anything else, managed by farmers whose families have worked the same ground for generations, using animals that have been optimised for these conditions over centuries. 85% self-sufficient in beef. 100% in milk. 90% in eggs. The animal products on your plate, if you're eating in Britain, are almost certainly British. The supply chain is: farm, abattoir, butcher or supermarket. Measured in miles. Sometimes in tens of miles. Now. Your January strawberries are from Egypt. Your year-round peppers are from Spain or Morocco. Your salad leaves are from Israel in winter. Your green beans come from Kenya. Your blueberries are from Peru or Chile. They travel by refrigerated air freight, which is roughly fifty times more carbon-intensive per kilogram than road transport, to sit in a plastic clam shell next to a small flag and the word "fresh." The environmental argument against British animal products is not an environmental argument. It is a geography argument made by people who have not checked where their food comes from. Check where your food comes from.

Since Essex Police visited me over a tweet calling out “Jew haters” hatred of Jews has got out of control. The police didn’t arrest the Jew haters, did they? They intimidated and sought to criminalize those who criticised Islamists. No one respects the police any more.