Jacque Rose

My furrbaby Ellie had a a special burfday om Saturday Caturday, turning #superseniorcat 19 years old #queenellie #catsbirthday #caturday #meowday #pawtiedout

Before Anyone Crowns Burnham, Ask Him About Operation Augusta. The Westminster commentary has settled on its preferred narrative. Andy Burnham is the answer. The King of the North. The popular, relatable, effective politician who can reconnect Labour with the voters it has lost. Union leaders are backing him. MPs are championing him. The NEC has cleared his path. Nobody is asking the question his own record demands. Operation Augusta was a Greater Manchester Police investigation into a grooming gang of up to 100 members who abused at least 57 children, some as young as 12, all in the care of Manchester social services. The operation was shut down. The official reason was lack of resources, despite Greater Manchester Police having gained over 1,000 additional officers in the preceding years. Of 97 individuals identified as suspects, three were imprisoned. That was recorded as a success. When the subsequent review was published and MPs wrote to Burnham challenging him on the failures, his response was described in Hansard as supine. He accepted the lack of resources argument without challenge. MPs noted there was no sense of injustice in his reply. The minutes from the meeting where the decision to end Operation Augusta was taken had disappeared. The minutes from Manchester City Council had disappeared at the same time. The Rochdale review, which Burnham also commissioned, identified 96 men still deemed a potential risk to children who remained at large. That review covered failures between 2004 and 2013, documenting multiple failed investigations and apparent institutional indifference to the plight of hundreds of girls, mainly white, from poor backgrounds. Burnham described it as a lamentable strategic failure. He expressed anger. He called for a duty of candour on public servants. What he did not do was explain what his mayoralty had done to locate and prosecute the 96 men still identified as dangers to children. To be precise, Burnham commissioned these reviews. But commissioning a review of institutional failure is not the same as confronting it. The reviews documented failures that occurred both before and during his mayoralty. His response to parliamentary challenge on those failures was judged inadequate by MPs who examined it. Now the same political class that failed to press him on those questions is preparing to hand him the keys to Downing Street. Union leaders who represent workers in the communities where these failures occurred are backing him without condition. MPs who sat through the Hansard debate on Operation Augusta are championing him as the clean candidate. The media is treating his popularity as a sufficient qualification. The parallel with the Mandelson affair is not superficial. The central argument of this affair has been that institutional accountability has been systematically avoided by a political class more concerned with managing consequences than confronting them. The grooming gang failures in Greater Manchester represent exactly that pattern applied to the most vulnerable children in the country. Girls in care were failed. Suspects were identified and not prosecuted. Evidence disappeared. The response was described as supine. A political culture that cannot ask these questions of its preferred successor has not learned anything from the crisis that is forcing the current Prime Minister out. Changing the leader without changing the culture of institutional evasion simply reproduces the problem with a more popular face attached. Before anyone in Westminster, in the unions or in the media decides that Andy Burnham is the answer, they should read the Hansard record of Operation Augusta. They should ask what happened to those 96 men. And they should require a better answer than the one he gave the last time he was asked. "Operation Augusta was a Greater Manchester Police investigation into a grooming gang of up to 100 members who abused at least 57 children, some as young as 12"

@Keir_Starmer you've not progressed the country in over 2yrs, you've taken us backwards, you stir up the anger, curtailing freedom of speech if your white british, you don't even support our National flag, tell that to your King who your serve at his pleasure, you're a traitor! Open your 👀

Today, choose progress over the politics of anger. Vote Labour.

@Keir_StarmerOut @UKLabour shouldn't ever allowed to stand in an election you Respect English is the national language of GB, the culture is British, Scottish, Welsh, Irish its not that difficult. I used to live in Spin, spanish is their language and Catholicism their culture, you respect the country live!

@UKLabour .🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 THIS IS THE FACE OF THE LABOUR "MUSLIM" PARTY. 🤬 Vote REFORM UK ❤️ 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

Labour is on your side.🌹

Working in The City for 2decades in investment banking/ asset management, I wfh/1day/wk but commuted 4hrs/day. CS live in London this is UNACCEPTABLE, you'd be sacked in the corporate world. You work for the Taxpayers 💷 hold them to account NOW! telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer…

The law is clear: schools must not promote partisan political views and must ensure balance (Education Act 1996, s406–407). If Angela Rayner has given one sided political messaging days before an election, that’s not education, it’s a potential breach of these standards.

How dare you. I grew up in Telford and was sexually abused for over a decade under a Labour council. Countless little girls like me were failed by Labour politicians like you. If you want to know how Labour REALLY treats abuse survivors, here’s my story: As many other girls in Telford have also testified, I was made to feel as though I was to blame. The system criminalised the victims, rather than going after the perpetrators. I remember being asked by a detective whether I “consented” at any point to sexual activity, and told by a social worker that “my actions had led me to where I was today”. All the while, the Labour-led council tried to block an independent inquiry into CSE for years and their Council Leader (now the MP for Telford), along with 10 other powerful local men, even wrote a letter to the Home Secretary saying they felt an inquiry would unnecessary. Little girls in Telford were branded child prostitutes and p*ki shaggers… …by West Mercia Police and local Labour councillors, no less. In Rotherham, Rochdale, Banbury and elsewhere — all Labour-led areas — victims were continually swept aside by those in positions of power, as if they chose this lifestyle. The attitudes that social workers, local services, authorities had towards children was so skewed, and so deeply unprofessional. My abuse continued for years, at the hands of multiple different men throughout my childhood and teen years. Eventually, I confided in a social worker and filed a police report detailing the years of abuse that I had experienced. And my case, like 96.5 per cent of all sex crime cases in the UK, never resulted in prosecution. I was told that there was an unrealistic prospect of conviction against any of my abusers, due to the historic nature of my case. I spent years in silence because I thought I would somehow be judged or penalised for the abuse I had suffered. Because I had been conditioned to feel like I was somehow responsible for my own victimisation. The Telford scandal made headlines when it broke in 2015, then again when the Crowther Report was released in 2022. Yet, the news cycle moved on. And Labour tried their best to ignore it. You voted against a national enquiry into CSE. You gutted the local enquires model. You promoted key figures in the scandal to MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. You called victims “far-Right bandwagon jumpers” and grooming gangs a “dog whistle.” You failed. Deliberately. On every level. These are not crimes of the past. Kids are still being exploited, groomed, raped and even murdered in Labour-led areas like mine. It isn’t enough to have empty words and hollow promises. I even went on national TV to discuss Pakistani grooming gangs in Telford and the continued risk of abuse faced by little girls in my hometown. The next day, officers banged on my door, demanding I speak to them about my interview. They ignored victims for decades, but tried to intimidate me for speaking about their failings on live TV. CSE is a national epidemic. But Labour continues to treat it like a localised issue, choosing to believe that the extent of the abuse is contained to a few bad towns and pockets of bad apples. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Politicians like you, Bridget, refuse to address that fact for fear of being forced to confront your decades-long failure to protect young girls from abuse. It’s easier to ignore victims, especially when they come from communities, social classes or demographics that are already disenfranchised in Britain. And for those who do speak out, it feels like you are screaming at a brick wall that would rather label you as the problem than take you seriously. It was Labour councils. Labour politicians. Labour police forces. Labour MPs. You all knew. You were all complicit. How DARE you pretend to care about us now. You are a disgrace, Bridget.

SHE NAMED THE ABUSERS. THEY SENT HER ON A DIVERSITY COURSE. In 2001, solicitor Adele Weir was hired by Rotherham Council on a Home Office programme to research child sexual exploitation in the area. What she found was horrifying. Her ten-page mapping exercise named suspects, listed car registrations, and linked 54 abused children to one family. She estimated 270 victims at that point alone. She took her findings to senior South Yorkshire Police (@syptweet) officers. They told her the report was unhelpful. A police commander accused her of making up stories and deliberately lying. She was told to anonymise individuals and institutions. She was told she and her colleagues were exceeding their roles. Then files were stolen from the Risky Business office where she worked. No broken locks. No broken windows. A computer had been accessed. A police officer stopped her in her car and told her, in no uncertain terms, that people knew where she lived. Her work was sidelined. By 2007 the operation around her had effectively collapsed. Her reports were finally released by South Yorkshire Police (@syptweet) in 2015, only after a Freedom of Information request. The Jay Report, published in 2014, found that approximately 1,400 children had been abused in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013. It concluded that by 2005 it was hard to believe senior officers and elected members were not aware of the problem. Zero senior officials were prosecuted. Zero. A researcher identified the abuse network in 2001 with names, car plates, and victim counts. The institution's response was to bury the paperwork and threaten the person who wrote it. Source: The Guardian @guardian | Wikipedia | Jay Report 2014 | Home Affairs Committee Evidence 2014-2015

Britain Is Under Attack on Multiple Fronts. The Government Cannot Respond. Here Is Why. Keir Starmer wrote the preface to his own Strategic Defence Review. His first duty as Prime Minister, he declared, is to keep the British people safe. Lord Robertson, the man Starmer appointed to conduct that review, has now said publicly that he is failing that first duty. We are under-prepared. We are under-insured. We are under attack. We are not safe. Those are not the words of an opposition politician. They are the words of the government's own reviewer, driven to break cover because the investment plan his review recommended was left on the shelf. Tom Tugendhat's assessment at Policy Exchange this week completed the picture. No integrated short range air defence protecting critical national infrastructure. No contracts or budgets to repair airfields if damaged or destroyed. Undersea cables carrying the vast majority of intercontinental data being systematically surveyed by Russian naval vessels. No NHS mass casualty plan. The Cold War infrastructure that provided one was dismantled in the late 1990s on the assumption it would never be needed. We now find ourselves in a world where it is needed and the infrastructure is gone. Charles Moore writing in the Telegraph is right that Britain has rarely faced greater danger and that our leaders remain woefully complacent. Where his analysis needs to go further is in explaining why. The complacency is not accidental. The paralysis has a cause. A government that cannot proscribe the IRGC because it fears the electoral consequences in specific constituencies cannot make the defence decisions Robertson recommended for the same reason. A government that dare not define the Islamist threat because it fears for its Muslim vote cannot enforce a single standard of policing, cannot name the grooming gang demographic, cannot stop the marches that built the permission structure for five attacks on the Jewish community of north London in six weeks. The domestic political constraint and the strategic defence failure share the same root. Electoral demography has made this government structurally incapable of acting in the national interest on either front simultaneously. Robertson described corrosive complacency. The more precise diagnosis is structural paralysis. The coalition that brought Labour to power in 2024 includes constituencies whose priorities are in direct conflict with the national interest on immigration, on Islamism, on Iran and on defence spending. Every decision that would make Britain safer carries a domestic political cost that the coalition will not bear. So the decisions do not get made. The SDR sits on the shelf. The IRGC remains unproscribed. The threat level rises to severe. And the Prime Minister visits Golders Green two days after elderly Jewish men were stabbed in the face outside their synagogue and calls it appalling. Russia is probing undersea cables and airspace. China is infiltrating higher education and infrastructure systems. Iran is directing proxy attacks on British streets and conducting assassination attempts against British citizens. The Islamist recruitment pool grows with every year of uncontrolled immigration from states whose official ideologies include eliminationist antisemitism and a hatred of the West. All of this is documented, assessed and known. The intelligence picture is not the problem. Lord Robertson used the words under attack. He is right. Britain is under attack on multiple fronts simultaneously, external and internal, strategic and civic. The government that should be responding to that attack cannot do so because the electoral coalition that keeps it in power will not allow it. A nation whose government cannot act in its own national interest because of who it depends on for votes is not a nation under complacent leadership. It is a nation under captured leadership. And that is a harder problem to solve than buying more missiles.

@IsabelOakeshott and confirmation that his British passport has been revoked immediately

Police describe the Golders Green suspect as a "British national born in Somalia." Correction: the suspect is a Somalian who, by the sounds of it, was very stupidly given British citizenship. We deserve to know how, when, why.

@JuliaHB1 has his british passport been revoked immediately?

The Met Police have confirmed that the Golders Green terror suspect is a British national who was born in Somalia. We imported this man to our country and then gave him a British passport. And now he's under arrest after a knife rampage against Jews in broad daylight. We're also told he has mental health problems and a history of violence. But remember everyone, diversity is our strength.

One I can get behind.👏👏

@RupertLowe10 As a woman watching the response you got from @bphillipsonMP was disgusting, deciding to political point score, totally dismissing the actual fears of women you were expressing, she sided with men when she did that, she expressed zero empathy of real concerns 🤢🤮

Standing up in Parliament today, listening to these pathetic MPs jeer and insult me when I voice serious concerns that millions of British women are feeling across the country, I felt so ashamed to sit in that building with those people. This is not complicated. Countless foreign men from cultures and religions which treat women like shit are now roaming our streets - whether they arrived legally or illegally, the point remains. Wilfully imported by Conservative, Labour and Reform politicians. All of them have blood on their hands. Afghans, Somalians, Albanians, Sudanese, Pakistanis, Eritreans. The importation list goes on and on… They drink, they loiter, they spit, they intimidate, they harass. They make life hell for so many women and girls across Britain. It is NOT normal. Do not accept it as normal. These are our towns, and I want them back. I feel very grateful that there is now a political party with the balls to not only outline the problem, but the determination to actually do something about it. That party is Restore Britain. We are going to take our country back. I have never felt more determined.

It still blows my mind that some people actually believe animals don’t feel anything or have emotions.

@JChimirie66677 what I don't understand is how can a 3linewhip force MPs to vote a certain way that the PM wants in his favour? surely this is totally UNDEMOCRATIC, MPs should be free to vote on behalf of their constituents who elected them, this in itself makes a mockery of the whole system 😡

Survival Is Not Vindication. And That Is The Real Danger. Keir Starmer will almost certainly survive May 7. Understanding why that matters, and what it means for the country, is more important than anything that will be said about the local election results on Friday morning. The arithmetic of his survival is straightforward. Council losses do not remove a Prime Minister. Even 2,000 lost seats leave his parliamentary majority intact. A Labour leadership challenge requires roughly fifty MPs to trigger it. Fifteen defied the whip on Tuesday. Resignation requires a man willing to concede, and Starmer has demonstrated on every occasion that he will absorb almost any political damage rather than do so. The mechanisms that might remove him are either blocked by his majority or insufficient in number. He knows it. His opponents know it. And he is governing accordingly. That is the danger. Not that he falls. But that he does not. A Prime Minister who uses a parliamentary majority to block independent scrutiny has demonstrated that the mechanisms designed to hold him accountable can be neutralised by the same majority that makes accountability necessary. The privileges committee, the humble address, the select committee process, all depend on the good faith of the government being scrutinised. Starmer has removed that good faith. And survived doing so. What that survival enables is the question nobody is asking with sufficient urgency. The Mandelson files are not fully released. Whatever Cat Little would not discuss in open committee remains in that vetting file. Jonathan Powell's China dossier, documenting multiple meetings with PLA intelligence figures and officials linked to Chinese influence operations, is being blocked from parliamentary scrutiny with identical language to that used to shield Mandelson. The pattern of decisions that has consistently accommodated Beijing's interests continues. And the network of relationships and private arrangements that produced the Washington appointment remains intact, unexamined and unaccountable. Survival is not vindication. A Prime Minister who avoids independent scrutiny through a three line whip has not been cleared. He has been protected. And the protection of a leader whose decisions have raised serious and documented questions about whose interests he serves is not a neutral political outcome. It is a continuation of the risk. Janet Daley identified the double standard with precision this week. When Labour demanded Johnson account for parties during a pandemic, it was a principled stand for parliamentary integrity. When the Conservatives demanded Starmer account for potentially misleading Parliament about national security, it was a desperate baseless political stunt. The asymmetry is not accidental. It is the operating system of a political class that has decided the rules apply to everyone except itself. Emma Lewell, one of the fifteen Labour MPs who defied the whip, put it plainly from her own benches. She cannot understand why Starmer does not refer himself to the committee to clear his name. One session could conclude the matter. Instead the scandal dominates every headline, overshadows every policy and drags every Labour MP down with it. Her question has never been answered. Because the answer, for a man with something to hide, is obvious. May 7 is a week away. Every seat lost is a message. Every council taken from Labour is a demonstration that a parliamentary majority does not extend to the doorstep. Vote. Make it count. Make the scale of the rejection impossible to absorb. But the ballot box will not answer the questions this affair has raised about national security, about whose interests this government serves, and about what remains hidden in the unreleased files. Those questions do not expire on Friday morning. The story is not over. The danger is that too many people believe it is.

@RestoreBritain_ @bphillipsonMP @bphillipsonMP it wasn't the moment to point score, it wasn't about politics or party vs party, it was ONLY about the real concerns of WOMEN! As a 53 yr old woman she disgusted me. Women MUST stand on the side of women when foreign men are harassing us on our streets @sharrond62

@RestoreBritain_ I was disgusted watching @bphillipsonMP dismiss what was being said was happening to women in that constituency & around the UK, to act like a schoolgirl bully she stood on the side of men NOT WOMEN!! She should take seriously the very valid fear of women that was being expressed

Rupert stood up in Parliament today and spoke for millions of British women who feel intimidated by the increasing number of foreign male gangs plaguing our streets. What did other MPs do? Jeer him. Insult him. Attack him. Restore Britain will protect British women.

spreading joy 🐘🫶

@Maxx_Moriarty @TheGriftReport 100% I lived in Spain as does my parents still and we pay for our translators when needed and translate hospital documents, school reports, not provided in numerous languages to accommodate. You respect the foreign country you have chosen to live in.

@TheGriftReport How much is this country paying for translators and interpreters for foreigners across every department? The double standards are disgraceful and I can’t wait for the kowtowing and pandering to stop because they’re terrified of being called racists etc. Pathetic 🤬

Councillor apologises after asking council call handler to speak English as critics agree with her Eastbourne Borough Councillor Elaine Hamilton, in her 60s, called the council helpdesk and struggled to understand the operator. She politely said “I’m sorry but I can’t understand you, can I speak to someone who can speak English please?” The comment triggered a backlash with some social media users branding her racist. Hamilton has now issued a statement apologising and saying she regretted any offence caused. Critics including local residents and fellow councillors have agreed with her, arguing English should be the language used for all council services so ratepayers can be properly understood.

@TheGriftReport english is England/UK/GB native language, I lived in Spain and spanish is their native language so cannot expect them to speak English. Any9ne who thinks this is racist IS the problem.