Persephone💚🤍💜Deboosted

Indeed. Seems the desires of a few males to play out their fetishes in public are elevated above the comfort & safety of everyone else in society. Why is this?@carolinenokes

@Sillyshib Oh dear. State of UK education.

The press have made the British people hate Keir Starmer like they made the British people hate Megan Markle. No one could give you a coherent reason why they hate either of them

@Shattubatu Still a man. Just a man with a slightly changed appearance, no doubt helped by the magic Troon mirror you all have.

HRT changed my face shape, my body shape, my body odour, my muscle mass, my eye colour, my hair colour, my metabolism, the way I experience arousal & sexual pleasure, the way I think, the way I feel, every part of me, physical and mental Anyone who says it does nothing is a liar

@Rikalii Absolute twaddle.

HRT changes our biology which is why it works as a treatment. 💖 Transwomen are biologically women. 🏳️‍⚧️ Transmen are biologically men. 🏳️‍⚧️

@nyaraVT Wrong sex hormones. Men do not need these & you are taking them purely for vanity’s sake & causing yourself harm.

They are hormones. Not dangerous chemicals. Not illegal drugs. Cis people can access them incredibly easily, but society forces trans people to jump through hoops. HRT should be over the counter for those that are 18+ like in other countries.

Eight-Year-Olds as Test Subjects: The NHS Has Crossed a Line No Civilised Nation Should Ever Cross There's a sickness deep in Britain's institutions – a refusal to learn, a refusal to stop, a refusal to put children before ideology. We were told Tavistock was the great scandal. We were told the Cass Review would draw a line under it. We were told the ban on puberty blockers was the moment the country came to its senses. Yet here we are again: the NHS preparing to put eight-year-olds on the same drugs it once called unsafe, all in the name of "research." Call it what it is – the return of a discredited experiment, dressed up as science, carried out on children too young to understand the harm and too trusting to resist. This isn't a medical trial. It's a moral collapse. The Health Secretary bans puberty blockers for "unacceptable safety risks" and then signs off on a study that will inject them into more than 200 children. You can't square that circle. Either the drugs are unsafe – in which case using them on children is grotesque – or the ban was political theatre and the trial is the truth. In both cases, the child pays the price. Officials can hide behind clipboards and committees, but the contradiction is fatal: no civilised country calls a drug too dangerous for routine care and then gives it to primary school children. We've seen this story before. Tavistock lived off the same delusion – that you can override biology with ideology, that you can halt puberty without consequence, that children in distress can be steered into a medical conveyor belt and come out whole. The tragedy is that we already know the results. We know the bone loss. We know the cognitive decline. We know the infertility warnings. We know that once a child is put on blockers, 98 per cent go on to cross-sex hormones. We know the detransitioners, with their broken bodies and their unanswered questions. We know the whistleblowers who were ignored. And we know the evidence Cass uncovered – "remarkably weak" to the point of farce. And yet the NHS has learned nothing. The same worldview has crept back in through the side door. Troubled children are once again treated as experiments, not as patients. Autism, trauma, sexuality, social confusion – all pushed aside to make room for the one idea the activists will never surrender: that a child's body is raw clay, ready for remoulding. They even admit the risk to brain development, but say the greater danger is upsetting a child who wants the drugs. It is the logic of a cult: feelings first, evidence last, consequences ignored. Then comes the darker underbelly – the smugglers, the fixers, the private clinics showing parents how to dodge UK law by flying to Dublin or Madrid. A banned drug, rebranded as "lifesaving care," administered abroad so the activists can claim clean hands at home. In 2022, Susie Green and her network turned desperation into a business model. Families pay thousands. Children get injections. The loophole gets exploited. And the state, once again, is caught flat-footed while ideology races ahead. The truth is stark: Britain is not safeguarding children. It is feeding them back into the same machine that failed the last generation. The NHS had its reckoning – Cass exposed the rot, the courts blew the whistle, former patients lifted the lid. But instead of rebuilding trust, the system has doubled down. A new trial. New paperwork. New language. Same harm. Puberty is not a disease. Childhood is not an illness. Troubled teenagers do not need their natural development shut down like a factory line. They need time, care, honesty, boundaries, and adults willing to tell the truth – not activists in lab coats playing God with their futures. This trial marks a line. Not between one government and the next, but between a society that protects its young and a society that experiments on them. "We were told Tavistock was the great scandal. We were told the Cass Review would draw a line under it."

@JChimirie66677 @minnymoaner @Marco3316547308 That in itself is a skill!

Nadine, everything in these posts is drawn from the public domain. Parliamentary records, official statistics, published reports, mainstream newspaper investigations. None of it is hidden. All of it is findable. What it requires is not access to secret information but the willingness to look, to connect what you find, and to say plainly what it means.

Four Resets. A Billion for China. No Answers. Strip away the framing and Starmer's speech this morning reveals more than it intends. "Incremental change won't cut it," said the Prime Minister. He said this at his fourth reset in under two years. The first reset promised stability. The second promised delivery. The third promised a cost of living focus. The fourth promises urgency. The pattern is not a pivot. It is a confession, repeated at intervals, that the previous confession produced nothing. The substance amounted to this: do everything we were already doing, but announced with greater volume. Young people need hope, so more apprenticeships. Britain needs growth, so closer ties with Europe. British Steel needs saving, so nationalise it. Each announcement a repackaging of something already underway or already failing. Take British Steel. Starmer announced legislation this week to bring it into full public ownership. He presented this as bold, urgent action on the side of working people. The reality is that the government has been effectively running British Steel since April 2025, when emergency legislation was rushed through Parliament after the Chinese owner Jingye threatened to close the blast furnaces. Since then the taxpayer has provided approximately £419 million in working capital to keep the site alive. Steel production in Britain remains on a steep downward trend. And now, according to reports, Jingye is demanding over a billion pounds in compensation before agreeing to hand back a company the British taxpayer has been running and funding for over a year. Nationalising a patient already on life support and paying its previous Chinese owner a billion pounds for the privilege is not industrial policy. It is the formalisation of an existing liability with a price tag attached, announced this morning as though it were an achievement. On young people and hope: Labour priced a generation out of work. Youth unemployment surged to levels not seen in more than a decade, driven directly by the employer National Insurance rise, the surge in minimum wages and the consequent collapse in entry-level hiring across retail, hospitality and service industries. The ladder into work was kicked away in the name of fairness. This morning Starmer offered those young people more apprenticeships and a closer relationship with Brussels. Neither addresses what caused the problem. On Europe, the most significant moment was not what Starmer said but what he refused to say. Asked directly whether the next Labour manifesto would rule out rejoining the single market or the customs union, he declined to answer. The 2024 manifesto was explicit: no single market, no customs union, no freedom of movement. Voters were told this clearly and voted accordingly. Today Starmer opened the door and left it open. Not a reset. A destination, confirmed. The response to the speech from his own side told the story more honestly than the speech itself. A senior government source said he had said nothing new and feared the speech had pushed Labour into chaos. David Smith, the Labour MP for North Northumberland, became the 44th backbencher to demand his resignation within minutes of him finishing. Starmer's answer to all of it was that Labour would never be forgiven for the chaos of a leadership contest. It is the strongest card he has left. It is also the smallest one. A Prime Minister who is paying a Chinese company over a billion pounds to leave a business the taxpayer has been running for a year, and who opened the door to single market membership four days after the worst local election result in Labour's modern history, is not providing real answers. He is providing the appearance of them. Britain has seen this before. Three times, in fact. "Nationalising a patient already on life support and paying its previous Chinese owner a billion pounds for the privilege is not industrial policy."

They Knew Mass Migration Would Break Britain. They Did It Anyway. Prof Alan Manning, the former head of the government's own Migration Advisory Committee, was speaking publicly about Britain's immigration record when he said the quiet part out loud: mass migration was used to paper over economic failure, and it is now storing up serious long-term problems. Not warned about. Not predicted. Stored up. Deliberately. That admission matters because it comes from the heart of the system that designed and defended the policy. Manning was not criticising from the outside. He was explaining how the state learned to substitute migration for reform. When austerity hollowed out public services and ministers refused to fix pay, productivity or training, immigration became the workaround. It was easier to import people than to repair the model. For a time, this sleight of hand worked. Wage restraint in the NHS became "international recruitment". Universities starved of funding were turned into visa factories. A broken social care system was propped up with low-paid migrant labour instead of being rebuilt. Each failure was masked by the same answer: bring people in, keep the system moving, and push the costs into the future. Manning now concedes what voters were told was heresy. The fiscal benefits of this approach were always short-term. The costs were always long-term. And those costs are not abstract. They show up in overcrowded housing markets, longer NHS waiting lists, classrooms stretched beyond capacity, stagnant wages at the bottom end of the labour market, and a welfare state carrying obligations it was never designed to absorb at this scale. The OBR's figures remove the last layer of comfort. The average low-earning migrant, over a lifetime, costs the state more than they contribute. Again, this is not a moral judgement on individuals. It is a devastating judgement on a policy that knowingly brought people into a system that could not support them without degrading conditions for everyone else. Manning's most revealing comparison is to public borrowing. Immigration, he says, was treated like debt: more money today, less tomorrow. That is exactly right. Governments spent social cohesion, infrastructure capacity and public consent to buy short-term stability and political quiet. The bill was deferred, not avoided. And now the bill is arriving. Population growth has outpaced housing. Demand has outstripped services. Pay has been held down by design. Communities feel transformed without consent. Trust in institutions has collapsed. Even as net migration falls, the accumulated pressure remains. You do not undo a population surge of millions by announcing lower numbers and moving on. What makes this scandalous is not that mistakes were made. It is that this was a conscious strategy. Migration was not a by-product of policy failure; it was the tool used to manage it. Instead of governing honestly, the state imported labour and called it compassion. Instead of reforming broken systems, it fed them new bodies and hoped they would cope. Now the architects are retreating into the language of inevitability. "Long-run problems." "Unintended consequences." But there was nothing unintended about this. The trade-off was known. The warnings were issued. The decision was taken anyway. This is why public anger does not subside when ministers say numbers are down. People understand, even if politicians pretend not to, that the damage was cumulative. You cannot stretch a country for a decade and then declare the crisis over because the inflow slows. And the final indictment is this: a state that uses people to mask its failures is not humane. It is dishonest. And a political class that admits this only once the costs are locked in is not brave. It is exposed. "The OBR's figures remove the last layer of comfort. The average low-earning migrant, over a lifetime, costs the state more than they contribute."

These entitled larpers must be locked up. Make it a criminal offence for a man to be in women only spaces.

@papi_sierra @ScotsWhiteBear They don’t even believe it. They just don’t want women to have the right to exclude men from anything.

@ScotsWhiteBear Why would anyone be happy with such a lie ? You’d have to be pretty stupid to believe that sex is mutable . What can of imbecile would believe that ?

The GCs won't be happy

Starmer has just admitted he banned me and other commentators from traveling to the UK because we would “set back communities.” Yet mass third-world migration doesn’t bother him as it only sets back the one community he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about: the White native population.

@nyaraVT Stil a man.

The thing is.. I'm not a man. I'm okay with having the same risks that estrogen has in cis women. I'm okay with breast growth. I'm okay with infertility. I hope this helps.

@FruellaDeBrille No, only moobs same as Himdias.

He would know

@therealmissjo There is nothing they can do that is bad enough for our stinking government to deport them.

It really never ends… An Iraqi national, Yousif Al-Maliki, came to the UK on a small boat. He claimed to be fleeing persecution because he is bisexual. He was put up, at the taxpayer’s expense, in the Astor Hotel in South Kensington. And then in August 2025, he sneaked into a woman’s room at the hotel and raped her in the middle of the night. He has been found guilty by a jury, although his asylum appeal remains pending. It is likely that he will not be returned because he might be “in danger” if he is sent back. But what about the women in the UK? Don’t we have the right to not be subjected to dangerous men like this? (He was supposed to be sentenced on April 21 but there is absolutely nothing about his sentence anywhere. Did they lose him??)

@critic_all_hit @Telford_Escaper They absolutely are.

@Telford_Escaper Someone in that prison is doing God's work.

Wolverhampton Rapist Dies In HMP Wakefield 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 that’s what u call JUSTICE!! Akiel Flemming, 35, a convicted serial rapist who was jailed for attacking a young student in 2016 during freshers week, has died behind bars in HMP Wakefield. In October 2016, then 25 year old, Flemming targeted vulnerable students at the University of Wolverhampton. He raped one young woman in her own room. He sexually assaulted a second student in hers and hours later in the early hours of the morning, he tried to prey on a third woman who was asleep in bed with her boyfriend. Arrested the same day, Flemming claimed the encounters were consensual. In June 2017 he was convicted of rape, sexual assault and trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence. A judge described him as a significant risk to the public and sentenced him to 16 years in prison. Flemming was found dead on Wednesday, April 22, 2026, in the same high-security facility where former Lostprophets singer Ian Watkins was stabbed to death last October. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman has now launched an investigation into the circumstances of his death in custody. Flemming’s death has left his victims with mixed emotions. While one chapter of their nightmare has finally closed, many will feel that true justice was never fully served. #UKNews #CrimeNews #Wolverhampton #WestMidlands

Harriet Harman, who has previously stated that “transwomen are women” has just been appointed by Keir Starmer as his ‘Advisor on Women and Girls’. This Labour government continues to make a mockery of women and biological reality.

A recent study found that 94% of Canada’s trans-identifying inmates didn’t come out as transgender until after they were arrested. The same study also found that trans-identifying male inmates are 5x more likely to be sex offenders than other male inmates. Locking these men in women’s prisons is a violation of international law and every legitimate human rights organization should say so.

@paulafr68963440 Eat?

Apart from nodding his head and laughing, what does David Lammy do ?

@AntiWokeMemes He’s a lying misogynist who just wants women to surrender to men’s fantasies.

What is your response to Rupert Grint?

@FreddieChenn Ffs!

Thank god I transitioned

@nyaraVT Being a woman is not a man laying claim to special womanly feelings. He can have no clue what it is to be a woman, only a man’s idea of what it would be.

Being a woman isn’t about ones genitals. Being a woman isn’t about the ability of getting pregnant. This is controversial because you breeders are incapable of understanding that gender identity is in your brain, not in your pants.