#ThinBlueLine #PoliceLivesMatter

I'm gonna say it now. This deal WILL fall apart, just like every deal since the 1960s. The simple fact is hamas want to destroy #Israele Mooslums will lie to you face to achieve their objectives. Hamas will never accept a two state solution. reuters.com/world/middle-e…

I say to the Government: no more evasions, no more excuses, and no more terminal inexactitude from that Dispatch Box. The House deserves better. The country expects better. This was an appointment that should never have been made. The Government pushed the Peter Mandelson appointment through anyway, and now they are scrambling for excuses. They say the system failed. It did not. They ignored it. The facts were already in the public domain. The Cabinet Secretary advised them to pause and wait for proper clearance. Sensible advice. Responsible advice. They ignored that too. Instead, they rushed it through, put the King in the firing line, secured agrément, and hoped it would hold. It did not. That is not due process, that is recklessness. And today we learned something even more serious: despite not being cleared, he had access to highly sensitive material. That should concern every Member of this House. So the question is simple: why? Why push this through against the evidence, against advice, and against common sense? The Prime Minister owns this. This was his decision, and it has failed.

Two Scottish newspapers - The National and the Herald have refused to carry an advert that mentions a party’s policy of supporting women’s sex based rights. How can this be allowed to stand? Censorship of a legitimate policy during an election. #WomenWontWheesht

Word for word! 👏👏 Andrew Snowden rips Starmer a new one but with facts and honesty.👏👏

Did Keir Starmer intentionally lie to the house? Answer: Yes. Watch for yourself. It's not even up for debate. He's bang to rights.

Muslim MP Zarah Sultana, at an anti-racism event, called for anti-Zionist militants to organise in every city and town in the UK and carry out “anti-racism” ethnic cleansing of Zionists.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Which one is the liar @Keir_Starmer ?

“Islam is the most important thing to me - it is the driver of everything I do” UK Home Secretary & devout Muslim Shabana Mahmood just banned an American politician from entering the UK. Do you know what types of government ban people from entering a Country because they disagree with their opinions? Fascist Communist Governments.

The One Question He Refused to Answer. Why Did You Want Mandelson? There is a document that cuts through everything Keir Starmer said in the Commons today. It was not produced by his opponents. It was not leaked by his enemies. It was written by his own Cabinet Secretary and placed in his box before he announced Peter Mandelson's appointment to the world. Lord Case told the Prime Minister explicitly: give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances before confirming your choice. The advice could not have been clearer. Vet first. Confirm second. That is the process. That is how it works. Starmer did the opposite. He announced Mandelson publicly on December 20 2024. Vetting did not begin until after the announcement. The security services subsequently said no. The Foreign Office overrode them. And today the Prime Minister stood at the despatch box, was jeered by MPs, and told Parliament it was unforgivable that he was not told the vetting had failed. There is a second document. The official due diligence advice to the Prime Minister dated 11 December 2024, nine days before that announcement. It recorded in plain terms, assembled from open source material requiring nothing more than a search engine and a willingness to look, that Mandelson had served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, majority shareholder of a defence technology company producing radar and satellite communications for Russia's land-based missile early warning system. Its chairman was Yevgeny Primakov, a Putin ally and former Russian prime minister. Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin's annexation of Crimea. The document also noted his flowery account of his October 2018 meeting with Xi Jinping, still visible on his Global Counsel website. Starmer read that document. Nine days later he announced the appointment. Today MPs asked him repeatedly why. Kemi Badenoch asked it. Diane Abbott asked it with a precision that cut through everything else said in that chamber. It is one thing, Abbott said, to insist nobody told me. The question is why the Prime Minister did not ask. The question beneath that question is the one nobody could get him to answer. Given everything that was publicly known about Peter Mandelson, his resignations, his relationships with dubious figures, his Epstein connection, his Russia links, his China connections, why did this Prime Minister want him in one of the most sensitive positions in global politics badly enough to ignore all of it? He did not answer. Not once. Not to anyone. That refusal is more revealing than anything he said. Emily Thornberry, chair of the foreign affairs committee, came closest to naming what the unanswered question points toward. She alleged the appointment had been driven by certain members of the Prime Minister's team who ensured security considerations were second order. Starmer rejected the charge. He offered no alternative explanation. The cascade of failures that followed, the override, the Strap Three clearance, the misleading of Parliament, the sacking of Robbins, flows directly from that single act of wilful incuriosity. The question of why he was so determined to make this appointment, despite his Cabinet Secretary's advice, despite the Russia and China warnings in his own due diligence report, despite everything the country already knew, remains unanswered. Today was his chance. He chose not to answer. Tomorrow Robbins gives evidence. What he says may tell us more about why Mandelson was wanted in that post than anything the Prime Minister offered today. The question that was not answered on Monday will not go away. It is the only question that matters. And the country is still waiting. "It is one thing, Abbott said, to insist nobody told me. The question is why the Prime Minister did not ask."

@theSNP And what about the rest of us non "artists"? Just another attempt to buy votes.

A re-elected SNP government will pilot a Scottish Artists Minimum Income, giving targeted support to artists and creative workers so they have the space to develop their craft, build sustainable careers and strengthen Scotland’s cultural life. Make it #BothVotesSNP on May 7 for a government that’s on your side.

Europe: “We demand a Two State Solution” UN: “We demand a Two State Solution” US Democrats: “We demand a Two State Solution” Australia: “We demand a Two State Solution” Canada: “We demand a Two State Solution” Arab League: “We demand a Two State Solution” Israel: “We offered it many times. We even gave them Gaza. Look what they did with it?” Hamas, PLO and PA: “We’re not actually sure why you’re all demanding a Two State Solution. And we’re not really sure why Israel offered us any proposals or gave us Gaza. We don’t want a damned Two State Solution. We want ALL of it, every inch of Israel, and we want to kill all the Jews. We’ve been pretty freaking clear about it in fact. We even did October 7 and will do it again and again and again and again until we kill them all. And then, when we’ve got all of Israel and they’re all dead and we control Jerusalem, then we’re coming for ALL the world next. Mwahahaha”…. Europe: “We demand a Two State Solution” UN: “We demand a Two State Solution” US Democrats: “We demand a Two State Solution” Australia: “We demand a Two State Solution” Canada: “We demand a Two State Solution” Arab League: “We demand a Two State Solution” And round and round we go. Cut, paste, repeat

SEVERAL PEOPLE ARE ASKING: WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? Let me offer one of several answers. The first step is not another government commission or a strongly worded resolution from Brussels. The first step is to name it correctly. THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS CHANGE! Islam is not first and foremost a religion. It is a political law system. A total ideology that governs every aspect of life - diet, dress, finance, family, sexuality, governance, war and the treatment of non-believers. It has a legal code - sharia - that claims divine authority and demands implementation by the state. Christianity tells you how to relate to God and your neighbour. The separation of church and state is a Christian idea —- “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” There is no equivalent in Islam. There never has been. When we understand Islam as a political ideology - rather than a private faith - the entire discussion about religious freedom changes. Because religious freedom protects your right to pray. To worship. To believe whatever you choose in your own heart and your own home. It does not protect a political system that demands the subjugation of women. That calls for the death of apostates. That considers non-believers second-class citizens. That seeks to replace the laws of a democratic state with divine law that cannot be questioned, amended or voted away. We do not grant religious freedom to Nazism because it has a spiritual dimension. We do not protect Communism from criticism because some of its followers are sincere. We judge ideologies by what they demand - and what they do to people when they have power. Islam as a political system has been given power in 57 countries. The result is the same every time. Women are controlled. Minorities are persecuted. Dissidents are silenced. Freedom disappears. That is not a coincidence. That is the system working exactly as designed. The moment Western governments and courts begin treating Islam as what it actually is - a political ideology with religious elements, rather than a religion with political elements - the entire legal framework shifts. You can restrict a political ideology that is incompatible with democracy. You already do it with others. You just have to be honest about what you are dealing with. That is the first step. And it starts with saying it out loud.❤️‍🔥🪽✝️

@theSNP IT IS NOT FREE

A re-elected SNP government will protect free prescriptions, free eye tests, free tuition, free bus travel, lower Council Tax, free school meals, the Baby Box and funded childcare, while going further to help families with the cost of living. Make it #BothVotesSNP on May 7 for a government that’s on your side.

Starmer Was Warned About Russia and China. He Proceeded Anyway. Tomorrow He Calls It Unforgivable Tomorrow Keir Starmer will stand at the despatch box and tell Parliament it was unforgivable that he was not told Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting. He will present himself as a Prime Minister betrayed by his own system. He will speak of outrage and of lessons learned. He should not be allowed to do so unchallenged. Tonight the Telegraph has disclosed that Starmer was handed a due diligence report before the appointment was announced in December 2024. That report cited concerns about Mandelson's business interests in China, his connections to a Russian conglomerate whose chairman was an ally of Vladimir Putin, and his continued involvement with that organisation well after Russia's annexation of Crimea. The Telegraph has separately established that Mandelson was targeted by Russian intelligence for decades. Starmer read the report. He proceeded with the appointment. The UKSV vetting process subsequently reached the same conclusion. Senior Whitehall sources have told the Telegraph that the vetting findings largely restated the security risks already drawn to Starmer's attention. One source put it plainly. The reality is that Starmer had already been warned about the major risks and he had waved them away. Downing Street's response is to draw a distinction between due diligence and developed vetting, arguing that the two processes are separate and carry different weight. The distinction is technically correct and substantively irrelevant. A Prime Minister who reads a report flagging China and Russia concerns about a candidate, appoints him regardless, and then expresses staggering outrage when a more rigorous process reaches the same conclusion, has not been kept in the dark. He has chosen not to look. Consider what followed that choice. Mandelson was not merely appointed. He was granted Strap Three clearance, the highest level available to the Foreign Office, giving him access to information that could put intelligence sources at risk if leaked. A man targeted by Russian intelligence for decades. A man whose China connections alarmed American senators sufficiently to refer a dossier to the FBI. A man who had maintained a relationship with a convicted paedophile long after conviction and shared government information with him. That man was given access to material that could endanger lives. And the Prime Minister who had read the warnings says he was kept in the dark. Lord Glasman, one of Starmer's own, sent a memo to Morgan McSweeney after Trump's inauguration warning about Mandelson's Epstein connections. The 2023 dossier from the security services warned Labour shadow ministers about his links to hostile states. The due diligence report warned about China and Russia. The vetting process said no. At every stage, at every level, from the security services to his own party's senior figures, the warnings arrived. At every stage they were set aside. Tomorrow's statement will be framed as an act of transparency. It should be read as an act of audacity. A Prime Minister who received multiple warnings about a candidate's security risks, appointed him anyway, granted him access to the most sensitive intelligence material available, and then sacked the civil servant who followed the rules, is not a man who was let down by his system. He is a man who used his system to get the outcome he wanted and is now asking Parliament to believe he had no idea what that outcome would be. The country was promised full transparency. What it will receive tomorrow is a carefully constructed account of ignorance from a man the documentary record shows was warned, repeatedly and formally, before he made his choice. He read the warnings. He waved them away. The despatch box will not change that.

‘“Puberty blocker” is a nice way of saying chemical castration. It leaves children sterile, mentally stunted and unable to have orgasms. We’re effectively turning them into eunuchs.’ @HJoyceGender on the medical scandal of gender-affirming care:

A scene from Yes Prime Minister that was ahead of its time in satirising Keir Starmer’s style of leadership.

Remember what he said?

Get the SNP out @JohnSwinney you are not fit to run a country as is your party

@benonwine The very least she could do is speak English?

Muslim mayor of Rotherham in the UK says that Britain can only be great again by implementing Sharia law, and demands the expulsion of all Non Muslims! Including British Citizens. Sharia Law has no place in Britain and nor does this disgraceful Rhetoric.

Keir Starmer, 2020: "When they made mistakes, I carried the can. I never turn on my staff and you should never turn on your staff." Olly Robbins has now been sacked. Morgan McSweeney resigned. Tim Allan resigned. Sir Chris Wormald resigned. Starmer should be the one resigning.

Starmer Sacked the Man Who Followed the Rules. Keir Starmer did not sack Sir Olly Robbins because he did something wrong. He sacked him because he did something inconvenient. That distinction matters more than anything else that has happened this week, and this has been a week of considerable consequence. Ciaran Martin, former head of the National Cyber Security Centre and a man with direct professional knowledge of how the vetting system operates, went on the record yesterday to say that Robbins had not only no duty to inform Downing Street of Mandelson's vetting failure, he had a positive duty not to. The system is designed that way deliberately. Security vetting exists at arm's length from political authority precisely to prevent ministers from interfering in assessments that should be made on security grounds alone. Robbins followed the rules. Starmer dismissed him anyway. What Starmer has done is construct a causal chain that does not exist. The argument being assembled in Downing Street runs as follows: Robbins overruled the security services, Robbins did not tell us, and therefore we bear no responsibility for what followed. Every part of that argument is false. The decision to appoint Mandelson was Starmer's. He made it before vetting was complete. He made it in full knowledge of the Epstein connection. He made it because his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Mandelson, pushed for it despite institutional warnings. The vetting failure did not cause the appointment. The appointment came first. Starmer signed it off and the vetting process, working exactly as designed, subsequently said no. The sacrifice of Robbins also destroys what remains of Starmer's own defence. He has spent months insisting that process failed him, that he was deceived, that the system let him down. A former head of the National Cyber Security Centre has now said publicly that there was no process failure. The system worked. Which means the problem was never process. The problem was judgment. Starmer's judgment, exercised before the process had even concluded. Consider what the dismissal means for Whitehall. Every senior civil servant in every department now understands the lesson. Following established procedure will not protect you if the political consequences prove embarrassing. Correct conduct is no defence against a Prime Minister who needs a fall guy. The chilling effect on institutional independence will outlast this government and this scandal. Starmer has not just sacrificed one official. He has sent a message to the entire senior civil service about what loyalty to process is actually worth. Meanwhile the documents withheld from Parliament grow more suspicious by the day. The government will not say how many it is concealing. It will not describe their general type. It will not explain why their release would prejudice any future prosecution beyond asserting that it would. Sir Michael Ellis, a former Attorney General and criminal barrister of seventeen years standing, has said publicly that the prosecution argument is nonsense, that the test for contempt requires a substantial risk of serious prejudice that the existing wall of media coverage has already made effectively impossible to meet. A government with nothing to hide does not hide things it cannot explain. A Prime Minister with clean hands does not sack the civil servant whose hands were cleanest. Robbins told friends he would not be the fall guy. He was made one regardless. Starmer called the vetting failure a failing of the state. The man who followed the state's rules lost his job the same day. The public can see what that is. They have a word for it. So does the Ministerial Code. Keir Starmer and Olly Robbins