david ross

Rape victims are often accused of adultery under Sharia law if they report being raped by married Muslim men. Here is a shocking example: A 13-year-old girl in Somalia was raped by a married Muslim man. Instead of punishing the rapist, an Islamic Sharia court sentenced the little girl to death. The Muslim rapist accused her of “seducing” him by appearing in public, and the court agreed — convicting her of adultery. Hundreds of Muslim men gathered to stone her to death as an offering to Allah. They laughed, cheered and shouted “Allahu Akbar” as she screamed in agony until her last breath. Not one man stepped forward to save the 13-year-old rape victim. Everyone in the village heard her cries for help before the execution. Instead of intervening, they tied her hands behind her back and chained her feet. The local imam directed the men to dig a hole and bury her up to her waist so she could not move or dodge the stones aimed at her head. For hours before and during the stoning she begged for mercy, looking toward her neighbors, her father, and every Muslim man taking part. Until her final breath she cried out, but no one rescued her. Of the hundreds of men present, none showed compassion. The participants gladly joined this Islamic act of worship, ignoring her pleas and rejoicing with “Allahu Akbar” while brutally killing her. This is not an isolated barbaric act. This is Sharia law in practice — where the victim is punished and the rapist protected if he is married. Not all cultures are equal. Some protect the innocent. Islam punishes the raped girl and calls it justice. The West keeps importing this ideology while pretending it is compatible with our values. It is not. Share this. The world must see the true face of Sharia and stop the denial.

Harriet Harman has just been appointed as Keir Starmer's "Adviser for Women and Girls". Her first act? To offer a seat in the House of Lords to a defeated Labour councillor, who tried to stop a grooming gang inquiry in Oldham. Have they no shame?

No Crossing, No Fee. Britain's People Smugglers Now Offer Consumer Protections. Writing in the Telegraph, Home Affairs Editor Charles Hymas reports that a BBC undercover team walked into a phone shop called Afg Mobile Repair in Woolwich last week and found an established, functioning payment system for illegal Channel crossings. A wholesale business in Newcastle and a car wash in Cambridge were also named. The man behind the counter in Woolwich explained the arrangement with the calm of someone describing standard business practice. Money held until the crossing succeeds. Refunded if the boat sinks. No receipt. The smuggler calls when the funds arrive. The people smuggler running this network has been operating out of northern France for more than five years. The British end of his payment infrastructure has been running long enough to become routine. This is not a story about criminal ingenuity. Criminals are always ingenious. This is a story about what successive British governments have allowed to become normal. The same week, Albanian gangs were found advertising Channel crossings on TikTok. Places on small boats offered for £150, targeted at the Albanian diaspora already settled in Britain, with hashtags reading "Albanian in London" and "Albanian in England." One advert was viewed more than 5,700 times before a journalist asked TikTok about it. The account was banned. The next one will be up within days. The platform is not the problem. The problem is that Britain has become a destination so reliable, so lucrative and so difficult to be removed from that gangs can advertise the journey openly on mainstream social media and treat the takedown as a minor inconvenience. Labour will point to recent arrest figures, with NCA arrests up 55 percent in the past year. But the cumulative total tells a different story. The Home Office confirmed this month that more than 200,000 people have crossed the Channel illegally since 2018. Around 46,000 crossed in 2025 alone, up significantly on the year before. A phone shop in Woolwich is processing payments for people smugglers. A car wash in Cambridge is holding funds in escrow for illegal crossings. Albanian gangs are running discount promotions on TikTok. The 200,000 milestone was reached on this government's watch. Smashing the gangs was the promise. The phone shop is the reality. Keir Starmer has spent two years promising to smash the gangs. The gangs have responded by opening a phone shop. The payment infrastructure for illegal entry into Britain is embedded in British high streets, operating alongside legitimate businesses, using British bank transfers and British phone numbers. The criminal market for Channel crossings has matured to the point where it offers consumer protections. The reason this infrastructure can operate openly is the same reason it has always operated openly. The incentive to cross remains overwhelming because the consequence of crossing successfully is, for most people, indefinite residence in Britain. Hotels. Welfare benefits. Legal aid. Healthcare. The right to appeal, and appeal again, through a court system that takes years to exhaust. The gangs are not exploiting a loophole. They are exploiting the entire architecture of an asylum system designed by people who either did not foresee this outcome or did not care about it. Closing that infrastructure requires more than arresting the man behind the counter in Woolwich, though he should be arrested. It requires making the crossing economically irrational. Rapid removal. No hotel. No legal aid pipeline. No years of appeal. The moment a successful crossing stops guaranteeing indefinite residence in Britain, the payment system in Woolwich has no customers. The TikTok account has nothing to advertise. The gangs move somewhere else. Britain has the tools. What it has consistently lacked is the political will to use them. While that gap remains, the phone shop stays open and the boats keep coming.

I named the young British victims of mass migration on @Timcast. Henry Novak, 18, lay drowning in his own blood, cuffed by police after being called racist by his alleged attacker. Thomas Roberts, 21, stabbed in the heart by an illegal migrant. Proper vetting by the Home Office would have revealed he was wanted for two murders in Serbia. Barnaby Webber, 19, Grace O'Malley-Kumar, 19, Ian Coates, 65, killed by Valdo Amissão Mendes Calocane, who the NHS decided not to section out of fear of being seen as racist. The thousands of young girls raped by largely-Pakistani migrants, ignored by authorities worried about being called racist.

From BBC Newsroom to Cabinet. How Trans Ideology Completed Its March Through the Institutions. Fran Unsworth was the director of BBC News from 2018 to 2022. She was bullied out of her own newsroom by the staff she was supposed to lead. Not overruled by management. Not instructed from above to suppress gender critical reporting. Bullied out by her own staff. Programme editors avoided critical reporting on trans issues for fear of being attacked by their own colleagues. A specialist LGBT desk, captured by a small group of activists, kept other perspectives off air and declined to cover stories that every other serious news outlet considered newsworthy. The director of news of the national broadcaster could not control her own newsroom. The capture was so complete that even the person nominally in charge was subject to it. But Unsworth's most important words were not about the bullying. They were about the atmosphere that made the bullying possible. "There was a sea in which we all swam." She was describing precisely what Gramsci theorised and Dutschke operationalised. Not a directive from above. An atmosphere so thoroughly constructed by the captured institution that deviation from it became socially and professionally catastrophic. Nobody instructed her to be kind to trans people. The sea did. The consequences are documented in a leaked memo by Michael Prescott, an independent adviser to the BBC's own editorial guidelines and standards committee, written out of what he described as despair at inaction by the BBC executive when issues came to light. A constant drip feed of one-sided stories celebrating the trans experience without balance. Stories raising difficult questions about the trans agenda ignored even when covered by every other serious outlet. And Scarlet Blake, a biological male convicted of murdering Jorge Martin Carreno, referred to as a woman in multiple BBC news reports on the day of conviction. The BBC acknowledged it was a mistake. But the mechanism that produced it is not a mistake. It is a culture. And the capture is not confined to the BBC. James Murray has been appointed Health Secretary. His department oversees maternity services, breast cancer screening, female hospital wards, the Darlington nurses case and the single sex spaces guidance that the Supreme Court ruling made legally mandatory. In 2022 he told Julia Hartley-Brewer that trans women are women and that the definition of a woman was up for debate. Sources close to him now say his position has changed. Four years and a unanimous Supreme Court ruling will do that. The Health Secretary responsible for women's healthcare cannot define a woman without implying the question is contested. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously and without ambiguity twelve months ago that woman means biological woman under the Equality Act. The ruling is not ambiguous. The Health Secretary's position is. Murray is not alone. Starmer himself said trans women are women until the Supreme Court made that position legally untenable. Fran Unsworth was driven out by staff who held the same view. A generation shaped by the same captured institutions, swimming in the same sea, now runs the national broadcaster and the departments of state. Gramsci theorised the long march through the institutions in the 1930s. Dutschke operationalised it in the 1960s. The BBC memo, the Unsworth interview and the Murray appointment are the same march arriving at the same destination by three different routes. The sea in which they all swam was not accidental. It was built. Deliberately. Over decades. In the universities that educated them, the newsrooms that employed them and the party structures that promoted them. The Supreme Court has now told them what a woman is. The question worth asking is how many have actually changed their minds and how many have simply changed their answers. Fran Unsworth & James Murray

@ayeshaijazkhan Christian Britain has never been primarily about church attendance. Christian Britain is the foundation beneath everything you take for granted in this country. It is Magna Carta in 1215, the first constraint on arbitrary power, rooted in the Christian concept that even kings answer to a higher moral authority. It is the common law tradition, built over centuries on the Christian principle that every individual possesses inherent dignity and cannot be treated as property of the state. It is habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, trial by jury, the independence of the judiciary. It is the abolition of slavery, driven by Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect, Christians who believed that owning another human being was a sin against God. It is the suffragette movement, rooted in the nonconformist Christian tradition that every soul is equal before God and therefore every person equal before the law. It is the NHS itself, the creation of Aneurin Bevan, whose ethical framework was shaped by the Welsh nonconformist chapel tradition in which he grew up. These are not abstractions. They are living protections that this government is actively dismantling. Trial by jury, one of the oldest and most sacred guarantees in the Christian legal tradition, has been removed in an expanding range of cases by a government that cannot bring itself to enforce a single standard of justice on British streets. The same judiciary that prosecuted defendants from the summer 2024 riots with extraordinary speed and severity watched pro-Palestinian marchers chant death to Israel, carry Iranian regime flags and face no consequence whatsoever. The independence of the judiciary and the equality of all before the law, the very principles your empty churches built, are being hollowed out by the same political class that cannot enforce a single standard of justice on British streets because it fears the electoral consequences of doing so. The empty churches are a tragedy, not a triumph. What has not emptied with them is the civilisational inheritance they built. The rights you exercise, the legal protections you rely on, the democratic institutions you participate in, the freedom to criticise those in power, the freedom to practise your own faith without state persecution, all of it was constructed by a culture shaped by Christianity over a thousand years. You are living inside a cathedral and mistaking it for an empty field because the congregation has thinned. The question being raised is not whether Muslims should be persecuted. Nobody serious is arguing that. The question is whether a political culture built on Christian foundations of individual rights, democratic accountability and the separation of religious and civic authority can survive the systematic replacement of those foundations with a different set of values that does not share them. That is a legitimate question. Calling it scaremongering does not answer it. And on your closing point. The choice between hedonism and Islam is a false one constructed to make the answer seem obvious. The Christian tradition offers a third option. A moral framework that produced the most successful, most free and most humane civilisation in human history. The fact that fewer people are attending church does not mean that framework has ceased to matter. It means it is being taken for granted by people who have forgotten where it came from. "The Christian tradition offers a third option. A moral framework that produced the most successful, most free and most humane civilisation in human history."

The Guardian is reporting Angela Rayner has now paid £40,000 of extra stamp duty, but HMRC accepted she wasn't "careless" and so she didn't pay a penalty. On the public facts, that’s hard to understand. Here’s why:

@AngelaRayner, a few questions your statement does not answer. Tax Policy Associates, one of the most respected independent tax bodies in the country, states it cannot understand why HMRC decided not to charge a penalty. Both of your advisers explicitly told you to obtain specialist tax advice before completing the transaction. You did not obtain it. Independent experts say a penalty of approximately 20 percent was the likely and legally correct outcome under Schedule 24 of the Finance Act 2007. HMRC reached a different conclusion without explaining why. Do you believe HMRC reached the correct conclusion and if so can you explain why two independent expert bodies disagree? You state you had no personal financial interest in the trust set up for your son. The trust was funded in part by NHS compensation money awarded for your son's care. You sold your remaining stake in your Ashton constituency home to that trust for £162,500 in January 2025 and used those proceeds as a deposit on an £800,000 flat in Hove. How do you define no personal financial interest in that transaction? A £50,000 donation to the Office of Angela Rayner Limited from Refrigeration House Limited arrived on 24 March 2026, described as towards staffing costs and declared on the parliamentary register. Weeks later you paid the £40,000 stamp duty bill. Who owns Refrigeration House Limited, what is their connection to you, and was any part of that donation used directly or indirectly to meet the stamp duty liability? You say politicians should be held to high standards. The questions above are what high standards look like in practice. They deserve answers.

But this is what Starmer wants us to get closer to.

It's been a while, I'm very rusty! @D_Tarczynski @TRobinsonNewEra @LeeAndersonMP_ Gordon Brown has made the list for tomorrow if i get chance! Someone else too :D

Keir Starmer has asked Harriet Harman and Gordon Brown: “Do you want to be in my gang?” With Labour floundering, the limp PM has been reduced to digging up corpses from the party’s past in one last desperate attempt to save it. {satire}

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"

Three Quotes. Three Prophets. One Funeral Pyre. In 1968 Enoch Powell was sacked from the shadow cabinet within twenty four hours of delivering the speech that ended his political career. He had warned that Britain was permitting the annual inflow of tens of thousands of dependents who would become the material of future demographic growth. He compared it to a nation heaping up its own funeral pyre. He was denounced as a racist, driven from public life and spent the remaining thirty years of his career in the wilderness. He was also right. In 1972 Rudi Dutschke, the German Marxist student radical, described the mechanism by which the left would achieve its objectives without revolution. Not through the seizure of power but through the patient capture of the institutions that shape how people think. Schools. Universities. The civil service. The media. The judiciary. The cultural establishment. A long march, he called it, through the institutions. Change the assumptions of the next generation before they reach the polling booth and the revolution becomes unnecessary. The ballot box does the work. Dutschke died young. His strategy did not. In 2006 Muammar Gaddafi, speaking in Timbuktu, identified the third strand of the same process. We have fifty million Muslims in Europe, he said. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe, without swords, without guns, without military conquest. The fifty million in Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. He was not predicting an invasion. He was describing a demographic and political process already underway. A process that requires no army because the host country's own institutions, captured by Dutschke's long march, will accommodate it, facilitate it and denounce anyone who names it. Three men. Three traditions. Three vantage points. One convergent prediction. Now look at the evidence. The Policy Exchange poll showing that sixty three percent of British Muslims prioritise religious identity over British identity, that Muslim support for Labour has collapsed from eighty percent to thirty three percent and that the United Kingdom is, in the words of the lead researcher, far from being a stable multi-faith democracy. The Henry Jackson Society identifying 171 sectarian style candidates standing across 31 councils in Thursday's local elections, concentrated in Birmingham, Bradford, Blackburn, Tower Hamlets and Rochdale. The Green Party's own former deputy leader describing his party as a danger to society following an Islamist membership surge of 150,000 under a single leader. The parliamentary arithmetic showing Muslim populations a hundred times the size of Labour majorities in Bradford West, Birmingham Yardley, Rochdale and Ilford North. Fourteen percent of Muslim voters reporting their postal vote collected by a campaigner, almost double the general population figure and a practice courts have prosecuted for election fraud. The funeral pyre Powell described is now well alight. The long march Dutschke theorised is reaping its dividend at the ballot box, in the university, in the civil service and in the media organisations that still cannot report these poll findings without a paragraph of mitigation. And the Muslim continent Gaddafi foresaw is not a distant prospect but a visible trajectory in the cities and boroughs of a country that was once proud to call itself a stable democracy. None of these men agreed on anything else. Powell was a British Conservative. Dutschke was a German Marxist. Gaddafi was a Libyan dictator. When a Conservative intellectual, a Marxist revolutionary and a Libyan dictator reach the same conclusion from irreconcilable vantage points, dismissing all three without engaging with the substance becomes considerably harder than taking them seriously. And there is a fourth voice. Not a prophet. Keir Starmer stated that Britain risks becoming an island of strangers. He was right. Wasn't he?

The conversation in Jewish families is, as Trevor Phillips said this morning, “who among our friends would save us?” We are in an undeniable crisis of antisemitism, and many are asking whether they need to leave Britain. Many have already done so. This is heartbreaking, but the time for weak words is over. We need to be unsparingly honest about what is happening, and what we can do about it. Antisemitism is an ancient disease, and there is no point pretending it does not come from several sources. We saw the surge in antisemitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. It has been partly purged, but there are some - like Naz Shah - on the Labour benches who have made antisemitic statements in the past. We saw in the Maccabi Tel Aviv scandal that Labour are up to their necks in corruption and communalism in places like the West Midlands. Starmer and Mahmood got away with this - but they knew the police and council had worked together to ban the Israeli fans. They didn’t intervene to stop it because they didn’t see the problem. But the scandal happened because the authorities took the side of Islamists over Jews. Now we see the surge of the Greens - a party absolutely riven with sectarianism and antisemitic candidates and activists. And on the online right, we’re starting to see some of the antisemitic language we’ve seen emerge in the recent years in America. It’s not at all of the same scale - but that could change and it would be wrong to ignore it. Above all though - and this is where too many find it difficult to tell the truth - we have an undoubted antisemitism problem among the Muslim population. Polls show among British Muslims: - Around half say “Jews have too much power over UK government policy.” - Four in ten say the same for the media and the financial industry. - Only one in four believe Hamas committed rape and murder on 7 October. - Only one in four believes Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish homeland. - Around half feel more sympathy with Hamas than Israel. When people ask why Britain - for so long previously a welcoming place for Jews - suddenly has such a problem, this is obviously the most significant change. The official Muslim population here has doubled from 1.6 million in 2001 to over four million today. Some studies suggest seventeen per cent of our population will be Muslim by 2050. Only around half of Muslims in Britain today were born here. And the countries from which Muslim immigrants are coming often have entrenched antisemitic cultures. Pakistan, Somalia, the Middle East. We are importing hatred that should never be welcome here. We are faced with a choice between keeping our Jewish citizens and receiving more and more people from these places. The choice we should make ought to be obvious. We should deport any foreigner who espouses this hatred. We should show zero tolerance to any British nationals who incites hatred and violence. We have to clamp down on the hate marches, and lock up those who are guilty of public order offences and incitement - including anybody who calls to “globalise the intifada” and chants “death to the IDF.” Above all, we have to stop importing hatred and extremism and antisemitism from countries where we know these things are rife. I waited a few days after the Golders Green attack before commenting because I wanted to see what the reaction would be. Unfortunately it was exactly as anticipated: weak words, no action, promises to build higher walls around our Jewish citizens. But I am not willing to sit here and watch as my friends discuss with their loved ones whether they should give up on Britain and emigrate. As a country, we have a choice to make - and my choice is to stand unequivocally with Britain’s Jews.

Britain's Next Twenty Years: The Storm Ahead A nation can dodge truth only for so long before truth strikes back. Britain is out of road. For decades, governments have pushed mass immigration while pretending that multiculturalism make us stronger and that order will somehow hold as the state gives up ground. The facts are now set. What comes next isn't fiction. It's consequence. The streets will crack first. Tens of thousands of young men pour in each year from places where force rules and weakness dies. Rootless, idle, and itching for status, they become the spear-point of a demographic shift our leaders are not just tolerating but driving. Wherever these numbers land, the script repeats itself: gangs take shape, tribes harden, confidence grows, and the police pull back because they no longer have the strength or the mandate to hold the line. We already know the neighbourhoods that are buckling. Give it twenty years and those neighbourhoods won't just be trouble spots – they'll be whole cities. Civil unrest won't be an exception; it will be the rhythm of the country. One policing incident. One foreign flare-up. One sectarian march straying into the wrong street. Any spark will do. Riots will come like the seasons: driven by grievance, rumour, and the simple fact that the state now fears the mob more than the mob fears the state. And the disorder we've seen in recent years will look mild compared to what's coming. Britain's Jews will take the hardest blow. Antisemitic attacks rise with every foreign flare-up, and the trend is only upward. Soon synagogues will need guards the police can't provide, families will leave for safety abroad, and our leaders will feign shock as centuries of Jewish life vanish from our cities. Politics will trail the street and bend to the new blocs. Polanski's Green Party is the first clear sign of bloc voting shaped by sectarian identity – not the last. More will follow. Local councils will flip, entire wards will become sect fiefdoms, and parliamentary seats will be traded like turf. MPs will answer to overseas loyalties and grievance politics because that is where their ballots come from. The civic glue that once held us has already begun to harden and crack: expect parallel authority to grow – Sharia councils, neighbourhood courts, and local codes that run beside the law. When politics stops being about the commonwealth and starts being about competing loyalties, the centre gives way. Public order will weaken. Knife crime and assaults on women and young girls will soar. Terror alerts will multiply because the pool of radicalised men grows each year. Police morale will sink. Courts will cut corners. The state will keep the peace by lowering the bar: fewer arrests, fewer reports, fewer truths. The public will see the double standard clearly, and anger will harden into something colder. And then comes the trigger event. Every society built on denial meets one. A large-scale terror attack. A mass stabbing. A riot that spreads from city to city in a single night – the kind we've already watched tear through France. One shock that shows the public not just that the state is weak, but complicit. After that, trust collapses. Politics snaps. The centre buckles. Yet the real danger isn't open conflict. It's the slow death of a shared country. Schools split along cultural lines. Neighbourhoods sort themselves by fear. Public space becomes contested ground. People withdraw because the common life has gone. That is how nations fade – not with borders redrawn, but with bonds cut. This is the path we're on. Not by accident, but by leaders who push demographic engineering under the guise of compassion. They know exactly what they're doing. They choose drift over duty. A nation that refuses to defend its borders and its core will soon find it cannot defend itself at all. "Britain's Jews will take the hardest blow. Antisemitic attacks rise with every foreign flare-up"

“If It Wasn’t for Us, You’d Be Speaking French” King Charles Toasts 250 Years of Side-Eye 🇺🇸🇬🇧

Golders Green Is Not a Coincidence. It Is a Consequence. A man in his seventies was waiting at a bus stop on Golders Green Road this morning when a 45 year old male pulled a knife from his jacket and stabbed him repeatedly in the face. A second Jewish man was stabbed outside Hager's Shul synagogue on the same road. Shomrim, the Jewish neighbourhood watch, detained the suspect before police arrived and deployed a taser. Counter terror police are leading the investigation. The suspect's nationality and background are still being established. This is the third major attack on the Jewish community in Golders Green in five weeks. In late March four Hatzola Northwest ambulances were firebombed outside Machzike Hadath Synagogue by a group linked to Iranian proxy networks. On Monday an arson attack was reported at a memorial wall commemorating Iranian victims of the regime and the dead of October 7th. And this morning a man ran along Golders Green Road with a knife attempting to stab every Jewish person he could find. Counter terror police are leading all three investigations. The IRGC remains unproscribed. The government that knows all of this attended an Iranian embassy party and called it diplomacy. Keir Starmer has called this morning's attack appalling. He is right. But appalling is what you call something that surprises you. Nothing about this should surprise anyone. The Chief Rabbi stood at the scene of burning ambulances five weeks ago and said his community did not feel safe. He has been saying it for two and a half years. Danny Cohen wrote that British Jews are sensing frightening echoes of 1930s Germany. Jewish students are being chased home on university campuses. Jewish families are changing their names and making plans to leave. One in five students would refuse to house share with a Jewish person. The atmosphere in which a man feels emboldened to run along a public street stabbing elderly Jewish men in the face was not created by accident. Zarah Sultana declared Zionism one of the greatest threats to humanity from a parliamentary platform. The Green Party is preparing to pass a motion declaring Jewish self determination racist while its activists describe Jews as an abomination to this planet in WhatsApp groups. The Together Alliance marched through central London carrying Iranian regime flags days after the ambulance firebombing. Thirty six Labour MPs mobilised parliamentary machinery to silence Nick Timothy the man who named what was building. The IHRC led chants of death to Israel on the Embankment. Bobby Vylan led chants of death to the IDF on a London stage and the CPS cleared him. Slogan becomes atmosphere. Atmosphere becomes permission. Permission becomes action. Ed Davey has said the government must do more to keep Jewish communities safe. This from the leader of a party whose instinct on every question that led to this morning has been accommodation, whose policies protect the legal framework that blocks the deportation of those with no right to be here. The audacity of that response is itself a measure of how completely the political class has failed to understand what it has allowed to happen. The state is not short of intelligence. MI5 has thwarted twenty Iranian plots. The warning signs have been visible and documented for two and a half years. What the state has been short of is the political will to name what is happening, proscribe the organisations responsible and hold to account those whose words and marches provided the permission structure within which this violence operates. Call it terrorism. Proscribe the IRGC. Stop the marches. Hold those who created this atmosphere to account. Or keep explaining to a man in his seventies why he was stabbed in the face at a bus stop on his way home from synagogue.

@JChimirie66677 Murkier and murkier but the truth will out eventually

The Appointment Was Mandelson's Idea. The Cover Up Is Theirs. The most revealing detail from Tuesday's Foreign Affairs Select Committee testimony has received the least attention. It was not the confirmation that pressure existed in the Foreign Office. It was not Barton's account of a department with no Plan B if the vetting failed. It was a single sentence from Morgan McSweeney. The original idea for appointing Peter Mandelson as British ambassador to the United States was Mandelson's own. Mandelson lobbied for the role. He put himself forward. He sought the most sensitive diplomatic posting in the Western alliance, with its Strap Three clearance and its access to the most confidential intelligence shared between Britain and America, and he asked for it. Two questions follow directly from that admission and neither has been answered. Why did Mandelson want that specific post, with that specific access, at that specific moment? And why was McSweeney, a close personal friend of the candidate, instructed to conduct follow up vetting questions after the appointment was announced? Both answers matter. Both have been avoided. And both point toward an appointment driven by something other than Britain's diplomatic interests. McSweeney also revealed that the final choice came down to two candidates. Mandelson and George Osborne. Had Kamala Harris won the 2024 US election, Mandelson would not have been appointed. He was chosen specifically because Trump won. What specifically made Mandelson uniquely suited to that navigation has never been answered. The most plausible explanation points not to Trump but to the network of relationships, financial interests and private arrangements that made Mandelson valuable to people whose interests do not align with Britain's. Barton confirmed there was absolutely pressure on the Foreign Office. Nobody in the department could have been in any doubt that everything needed to be done as quickly as possible. That directly contradicts Starmer's PMQs claim that no pressure existed whatsoever. It comes not from a disgruntled sacked official but from a former permanent secretary with no axe to grind. Both McSweeney and Barton confirmed that the usual vetting process was not followed. Mandelson should have been vetted before the appointment was announced. There was no Plan B if he failed. The announcement was made anyway. The vetting failed. The override followed within 48 hours. This evening Parliament voted on whether to refer Starmer to the privileges committee for independent scrutiny of whether he misled the House. The motion was defeated 335 to 223. A three line whip did its work. Fifteen Labour MPs defied it. The rest voted to protect their Prime Minister from the consequences of his own conduct. The constitutional mechanism designed for exactly this situation was neutralised by the majority that made it necessary. A Prime Minister accused of misleading Parliament about national security used that Parliament's arithmetic to ensure nobody independent could investigate the charge. That is the precise opposite of accountability. Mandelson wanted the job. He asked for it. He failed his vetting. He got the job anyway. The Prime Minister who gave it to him used a three line whip tonight to ensure no independent body investigates how or why. Three hundred and thirty five Labour MPs made that possible. And as those votes were being counted, Britain's own ambassador to Washington, Sir Christian Turner, was being reported as having described his Prime Minister's future as touch and go. May 7 is just over a week away. The ballot box cannot be whipped. Use it. "Both McSweeney and Barton confirmed that the usual vetting process was not followed."