Grodkin Blodgett
8.3K posts

Grodkin Blodgett
@GrodkinB
It's hard to imagine any thought processes that can't be fatally contaminated by ideology.

"No, I don't subscribe to this 'kindness' - I'll tell the truth instead." I spoke at the Cambridge Union last night about LGBs, children's safety and women's rights. Full video here:

This is an ALL GIRLS Jewish school in my district. I’m all for prayer and free speech, but why do a bunch of GROWN MEN need to do this right outside of a school full of little Jewish girls??? Is not this what MOSQUES are for? Is this intentional? Mayor Mamdani @NYCMayor any words of wisdom on why all of a sudden they’d feel compelled to do this?


While the King’s Speech provided relatively thin gruel in terms of legislation, a few Bills have caught the eye of the Free Speech Union. One of these is the Removal of Peerages Bill. Writing in The Spectator, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, said: "I know from my work at the Free Speech Union (FSU) that ‘bringing into disrepute’ is a nebulous, subjective standard that's often invoked by green-haired Torquemadas to urge institutions to defenestrate anyone who dissents from their smelly little orthodoxies." We all know that those who raise legitimate concerns about mass uncontrolled immigration are more likely to be branded ‘far-right’ and cancelled than those who shout “Globalise the Intifada”. A Bill like this could very easily see peers who do not conform to the worldview of the Government of the day dragged before a kangaroo court and stripped of their peerages. We can already see this with the shadowy Forfeiture Committee that strips people of their honours. Lord Young says: "I can tell you with complete confidence, however, that some of these unfortunates have been forced to surrender their honours, not because they’ve broken the law, but because they’ve said something perfectly lawful that the committee thinks is evidence of ‘Islamophobia’ or some other thoughtcrime. I know this because the FSU has gone to bat for some of those poor wretches. They’re solemnly informed they’ve brought the honours system into disrepute and then are put through a year of misery as they wait to find out whether the proudest achievement of their lives is about to be thrown in the bin.” There are serious unintended consequences to a Bill like this — both for individuals and for democracy. Read Lord Young’s piece in @spectator and watch a recent episode of the FSU Podcast 👇




So I sat thinking about it, and then, by coincidence, the same question came up on GB News: who is the best person to run against Andy Burnham? For me, the answer is simple: Maggie Oliver. She is the former police officer who put her head above the parapet and spoke out when others stayed silent. She challenged the institutions and individuals who, in the eyes of many campaigners and survivors, failed vulnerable children and sought to suppress the truth. Thousands of young girls were subjected to horrific abuse across areas including Rochdale and Oldham. Multiple independent inquiries and criminal convictions have established that serious institutional failings allowed that abuse to continue for years. I attended a public meeting in Oldham and listened to victims, survivors, campaigners, and local residents. They spoke with dignity and clarity about how badly they had been failed. Their testimony was powerful and deeply moving. That is why a contest between Maggie Oliver and Andy Burnham would be so significant. It would give voters a clear choice between someone who has built her reputation by challenging institutional failures and a politician whose record continues to face intense scrutiny from critics. Ultimately, the public will decide who they trust to deliver accountability and ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated. @MaggieOliverUK you have an Army here ready to campaign for you.



This would be absolutely unforgivable. I repeat, unforgivable.



Who's cracking one more out for Starmer?

Keir: “Let’s call the millions of voters who just deserted us ‘far right’ bigots. That should work!”

Most dangerous cities in US and last GOP mayor: 1. Memphis: 1967 2. Detroit: 1957 3. Baltimore: 1967 4. Albuquerque: 2017 5. St. Louis: 1949 6. Oakland: 1960 7. New Orleans: 1872 8. Milwaukee: 1908 9. Chicago: 1927 10: Philadelphia: 1952 Notice anything? Everything they touch.

Hostage negotiations are currently underway at 10 Downing Street!


