Jonathan Medd

🚨 Andrew Neil just delivered a savage verdict on Keir Starmer. “There’s rarely a situation so bad that it can’t be made worse with a speech by Keir Starmer. No wonder he’s the most unpopular Prime Minister in modern history.” A veteran broadcaster calling it like it is. Labour’s collapse continues.

Marina posted this clip of herself on British television arguing that Israel is to blame for the rise in antisemitism. It's a familiar talking point and it comes up every time Jews are attacked, including the two Jewish men stabbed earlier this week in Golders Green. So let me ask her a few questions. Let's start with what Marina is actually saying, because she's careful about how she says it. She's not defending antisemitism. She's claiming she doesn't want Jews to get stabbed, but "what do you expect will happen"? Isn't that just a justification with a polite disclaimer attached? When you tell the world that violence against Jews is an inevitable consequence of Israeli behavior, are you reporting on reality or are you constructing it? Because when you hand someone a grievance and tell them their anger is understandable, what exactly do you think is going to happen? And if this is really about Israeli policy producing an inevitable outcome, why aren't Russians being stabbed on the streets of London? Russia has committed a staggering amount of documented war crimes and is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths at a minimum. Where's the inevitable backlash against Russians? The Chinese Communist Party runs an authoritarian repressive system with documented abuses on a massive scale. Where's the inevitable violence against Chinese people in London? The inevitability only ever seems to apply to Jews. So is it really about the behavior of governments, or is something else going on? And if the violence is a rational response to Israeli policy, shouldn't it at least be directed at people who actually support that policy? Do you think the attackers stop and ask their victims where they stand on Israeli settlement policy before they act? Do they check whether the person wearing a kippah supports Netanyahu or opposes him? Because who tends to get targeted in these attacks? Religious Jews. Visibly Orthodox Jews. And which Jewish group tends to be among the most critical and ideologically opposed to the Israeli government? Ultra-Orthodox Jews. There are some Hasidic sects who oppose the political state of Israel entirely on religious grounds. Did the attacker in Golders Green know that? Did he care? So what exactly does Israeli government policy have to do with any of this? If this were really an inevitable political response to Israeli actions, wouldn't the attackers at least be going after the "right Jews"? When you say Israel is responsible for antisemitism, which Israel do you mean? The State of Israel, meaning the Jewish people governing themselves in their ancestral homeland? Or are you talking about Netanyahu specifically? Because Netanyahu can barely hold a coalition together in his own Knesset. Do you really think he speaks for world Jewry? When people like you get accused of fostering hatred toward Jews, don't you immediately point to Jews like Zack Polanski and say Jews aren't a monolith, they don't all support Israel, stop painting us as antisemitic? So then why, when you want to explain away attacks on Jews, do you turn around and treat every Jew as a unified pro-Israel bloc? Which is it? Either Jewish opinion on Israel is diverse and cannot be used to justify targeting Jews, or it isn't. You don't get to use that argument in both directions depending on what's convenient. And before we even get to policy, is there any other country on earth where the debate isn't about government policy but about whether the country has a right to exist at all? Any other country where that question is treated as a serious and legitimate one? Because that conversation only ever comes up about Israel. So when people say they're just criticizing Israeli policy, are they being honest with themselves? Consider Donald Trump. Arguably the most hated political figure in Europe, certainly in London. Does anyone accuse Londoners of being anti-American for despising him? Does anyone accuse Americans of being unpatriotic for disagreeing with his policies, just as nobody did with Biden? Why does opposition to a government become a justification for Jews, anywhere, to bear the consequences? Why does that logic exist nowhere else on earth? Why only Israel? Why only us? Even if you accept, for the sake of argument, the premise you’re pushing, that Jews broadly support the worst accusations leveled at the Israeli government, since when does holding a political opinion about a conflict thousands of miles away justify being stabbed in the street? Reprehensible views exist among British citizens, as they do in any society. They do not get hunted down for it. Jews in England are openly anxious about their safety right now, and yet nobody expects them to retaliate by attacking random people who disagree with them. No one who spends their time demonizing Jews is looking over their shoulder, worried that the Jewish community will respond in kind. What Marina and people like her are really doing is reversing cause and effect. Does Israel cause antisemitism? Or does antisemitism, ancient and adaptable, always finding a new justification, cause these attacks? And when every Jew stabbed in the diaspora is another rung on the ladder of Aliyah, when Jews watch the government response and the public response and find it abysmal, can you really blame them for drawing the obvious conclusion? That there is one country on earth where the government is constitutionally obligated to protect them? Is it really a mystery why that country keeps looking more appealing? So what does England want to do? Does it want to keep doing what Marina is doing, blaming Israel, muddying the waters, treating Jewish safety as a geopolitical debate, while things get worse and worse until it isn't only Jews bearing the consequences? Or does it want to say clearly that it will not allow its citizens to be stabbed in the streets? If England can't say that and mean it, then shouldn't it at least be honest with its Jewish community? Why keep them waiting in limbo for a protection that isn't coming? Why not just tell them the truth?

It turns out that if you import millions of people who are taught to hate Jews their entire lives your country becomes less safe for Jews. Who could have predicted this?

I talked to a friend that does custom wheat cutting from North Texas to North Dakota. He said his Texas run has been canceled and the Oklahoma run is iffy right now.

From today, Working British parents will both now need to earn a combined total of £71,000 just to match the benefits of non-working families with 3 children. Labour always tax the productive to subsidise the unproductive.

SNL’s George Fouracres does a hilarious Keir Starmer impression on SNL and it’s spot on.

Three former soldiers will appear at Belfast magistrates court on April 20th. One is charged with a killing that took place in May 1972. He is not accused of acting outside his orders. He is accused of acting within them. The distinction no longer appears to matter. This is the reality behind Labour's Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, a piece of legislation dressed in the language of reconciliation that functions, in practice, as an engine of persecution. The state that sent these men to Northern Ireland, that gave them their orders, that relied on their judgment in circumstances no minister has ever faced, is now the state that funds the machinery pursuing them through the courts half a century later. That is not a technicality. It is the central fact. Taxpayer money flows to the lawyers challenging the actions of soldiers whose actions were sanctioned by the taxpayer. The government calls this justice. General Sir Peter Wall, who commanded the British Army for four years, calls it something without moral backbone. He is right. The operational consequences are already visible. Elite soldiers are leaving the SAS and SBS rather than face the prospect of prosecution decades hence for missions carried out under government orders. The crisis has become sufficiently acute that reservists are being brought into the regular SAS to fill roles vacated by those walking out. Britain's most capable fighting force is being quietly hollowed out by a bill whose architects appear indifferent to the result. Seven former SAS commanders have warned that the legislation is doing the enemy's work, that operational secrets exposed through inquiries give hostile states a narrative of lawless troops. Moscow, Tehran and Beijing do not need to discredit British special forces. Westminster is doing it for them. The asymmetry at the heart of this legislation is not incidental. It is structural. IRA members were released under the Good Friday Agreement. Many destroyed evidence, stayed silent, or received letters guaranteeing they would not be pursued. Soldiers kept records, gave statements, and remained traceable. Decades later, only one group remains available for scrutiny. Not because they are more culpable, but because they are more reachable. The Coagh ambush of June 1991 illustrates the logic perfectly. Three IRA men were stopped by the SAS on their way to murder someone. A coroner ruled the force used was justified. Years later a family challenged that ruling, arguing the soldier should have paused after each shot to consider whether to fire the next one. A judge described that argument as ludicrous and utterly divorced from reality. The challenge continues, funded by legal aid, heard at the Court of Appeal just days ago. No verdict ends the process. The process is the punishment. Keir Starmer has said publicly he is absolutely confident there will be no vexatious prosecutions. Three soldiers will be in a Belfast court in sixteen days. His confidence has not reached them. The government insists its bill provides robust protections for veterans. General Sir Nick Parker, who oversaw the final operations in Northern Ireland, says ministers do not understand the duty of the state to stand by those who serve it. The duty to stand by those who serve is contractual, not sentimental. A soldier who follows orders in a war the state authorised cannot later be offered up as payment for political convenience. What is being constructed here is not a legacy process. It is a permanent legal industry, sustained by public money, targeting the most traceable participants in a conflict the state itself waged. The soldiers kept their records. That is now their liability. A serious country does not behave this way. This one, apparently, does. "Keir Starmer has said publicly he is absolutely confident there will be no vexatious prosecutions. Three soldiers will be in a Belfast court in sixteen days. His confidence has not reached them."

We’re relying more on LNG to set the price because we’re allowing domestic supplies to decline and depend more on imported LNG supplies. A matter of policy. A bizarre policy driven by net zero zealots. Even in a mature field like the North Sea there is still a lot more gas to get out. Ask the Norwegians. Increase that supply and UK NBP hub prices will come down. Tax revenues will rise. Balance of payments will improve. Sterling will strengthen. And more jobs will be saved/added. Simples.

"Renewables - we're told they're cheap, no they're not. Wind and sun are free, the machines to turn wind and sun into electricity are not free - they are expensive"☀️🌬️ @KathrynPorter26 @ #BattleFest 2025 "Net Zero or ‘drill, baby, drill’? The future of UK energy"🛢️🏭 👇

Wow, that was sharp. An immigrant in London sees it better than anyone. Brits & Europeans — you’ve got to see this

@ArchRose90 Absolutely abhorrent.

It’s awful that these presenters see the Pakistani rape gangs, one of the biggest scandals in Britain, as something to mock. If the races were reversed, Labour Peer Ayesha Hazarika wouldn’t dare laugh about it.

Tony Blair: Left needs to end its unholy alliance with Islamists. Keir Starmer:

I lost count. This might be my 20th visit to Israel since October 7. Not to Lebanon, where I grew up, where an economy survives on the support of visitors. Not to crumbling Damascus, the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, which offered me nothing but harassment and a birthplace on my passport. But to Israel, during the worst war since its establishment. Because I am a traitor. I betrayed my friends and family, my educators, and the mainstream in Lebanon, Syria, across the Arab and Muslim worlds, in Europe, and in America. Unlike the masses who have never set foot in Israel, I know that Israelis are not monsters. They do not seek war, nor do they wage it to conquer land. The accusations of genocide, the blood libels, the conspiracy theories—they are not rooted in reality. They are born of ignorance, and too often, of something darker. At best, hostile opinions stem from a profound misunderstanding: of this war, of the history of this conflict, of political Islam and its ambitions, of Judaism, and certainly of Zionism. But how could the average person not be confused? A relentless campaign of misinformation defames Israel while elevating the Palestinian narrative into a simplistic story of pure victimhood. It is emotionally compelling. It is easy. It requires no deeper inquiry. And so the question is never asked: What happens the day after? Would a Palestinian state focus on building a thriving society, contributing to the region and to the world? Or would it continue a war against Israel? History does not leave much room for doubt. Every attempt at compromise has been met by rejection or violence. And yet, the pressure is always placed on Israel—to concede, to risk, to appease. Why? To satisfy crowds who chant slogans they barely understand? To align with a cause that thrives not on building, but on perpetuating conflict? Real genocides unfold across the world and are met with indifference. Millions of Kurds still seek a state. Others fight for self-determination without commanding global obsession. The difference is not the cause. The difference is the JEW. The particular fixation on Israel cannot be separated from a much older story—one of projection, distortion, and hatred uniquely reserved for Jews. I consider myself privileged. Privileged to have seen through the lies I was taught—the lies you are told. Privileged to have encountered the reality of a people who built, defended, and sustained a state against relentless hostility. As a seeker of truth, I was met with warmth, love, and respect. I have come to admire Israel and the Jewish people to such a degree that the noise—the accusations, the mob, the cowardice—has become irrelevant. Yes, I am a traitor. A traitor to narratives built on falsehood. A traitor to expectations that demand loyalty to lies. A traitor to a cause that demands endless sacrifice and conformity. A traitor to a cause to which I owe nothing. On the contrary, it owes me. I believe not what I was told, but what I see. I choose truth over belonging because I am free. If that makes me a traitor, so be it. I stand, firmly and proudly, with Israel. Am Yisrael Chai. #Israel #palestine #October7

Britain Is Sleepwalking Into Lebanon. Lebanon did not fall overnight. It was once the most cosmopolitan, pluralist state in the Arab world. Beirut was the Paris of the Middle East. A functioning democracy. A free press. A Christian majority that built a nation generous enough to welcome those who came. It believed that openness would be met with openness. That tolerance would be reciprocated. That good faith was a universal language. It wasn't. It never is. The Palestinians arrived after 1948 and in their hundreds of thousands after 1970, expelled from Jordan with their militias intact. The Lebanese state, too timid to enforce its own sovereignty, allowed armed factions to operate as a state within a state. Then Iran exported its revolution westward and Hezbollah was born, funded from Tehran, running its own hospitals, schools, courts and welfare networks. It made the Lebanese state optional for an entire community. Every accommodation encouraged the next demand. Every retreat was read as weakness, because it was. The civil war that followed lasted fifteen years and killed 150,000 people. But the war was merely the violent expression of something that had already happened. The state had lost its monopoly on violence. Communities had retreated into armed confessional blocs. The centre had hollowed out. Lebanon was already two countries sharing a flag but not a future. The Christians didn't lose because they were cruel. They lost because they were naive. They believed demographic generosity could be squared with political stability. They believed armed factions could be absorbed into a civic order. Power follows population. Identity hardens under pressure. Every community with a coherent creed will eventually act on its interests. The moral high ground is not a defence. In Lebanon it became a grave marker. Now look at Britain. Since 2018, boats have arrived on the Kent coast carrying tens of thousands of men, the overwhelming majority unvetted and undocumented, from Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Eritrea. They are housed and supported at public expense while the state performs the pantomime of processing them. Anyone who raises the subject is accused of racism before the sentence is finished. This is not immigration. It is the progressive dissolution of Britain's right to determine who enters its own territory. The parallel institutions are already here. Sharia courts operating alongside civil law. Educational environments teaching loyalty to the Ummah rather than to Britain. Areas where policing is negotiation, investigations are quietly dropped, and the state modifies its own behaviour for fear of communal reaction. In Lebanon they called it accommodation. They kept calling it accommodation right up until the checkpoints went up. The electoral bloc pressure is already here. Candidates selected on the basis of foreign conflicts. Representatives answering to communal leaderships rather than constituents. The institutional failure is already here. The Charity Commission investigated the Islamic Centre of England for three years. Little changed. Universities host vigils for mass murderers and hold nobody accountable. Prevent is applied selectively. Everyone knows it. Nobody says it. Lebanon did not collapse because its enemies were strong. It collapsed because its institutions were weak. Because it confused tolerance with the abandonment of standards. Because it believed the centre would hold without anyone holding it. Britain is not Lebanon yet. But Lebanon wasn't Lebanon yet, once. It drifted. Demographics shifted. Parallel loyalties hardened. The state lost the nerve to enforce a single standard of law. Bit by bit the centre hollowed out. We are drifting. The question is whether anyone in authority will admit it. Before the drift becomes a current too strong to swim against. "Power follows population. Identity hardens under pressure. Every community with a coherent creed will eventually act on its interests."

How can you possibly support Israel? Westerners who adopt the Palestinian cause from a place of distance and comfort struggle to understand people like me; people who come from the Arab world and have walked away from it. Some of us didn’t just walk away. We chose a side. I am the daughter of a Lebanese mother and a Syrian father. My mother is a child of the Lebanese Civil War—a war in which militias, backed and fueled in the name of the Palestinian cause, tore Lebanon apart. Lebanese killed Lebanese. A country was destroyed, not to save Lebanon, but to serve a broader ideological project. My father is Syrian. I grew up watching what regimes and militias did in Syria and Lebanon while constantly hearing that all of it was Israel’s fault. That was the story. But it didn’t match reality. We lived humiliation, corruption, fear. We stood for hours at checkpoints, bribed officials for basic rights, feared prisons where people disappeared. We watched regimes claim to fight for Palestine while crushing their own people without mercy. And still, we were told to sacrifice more. For Palestine. At our expense. So yes, let me be clear: Do I stand with Israel against those who destroyed our countries in the name of that cause? Any day. Anytime. Because I have seen what they did to us. And when I went to Israel, I saw something I was never supposed to see: a functioning country—a society with rights, accountability, and dignity—something my own region denied us. That doesn’t mean Israel is perfect. It means the story I was told was incomplete—and dangerously so. So when you ask, “How can you possibly support Israel?” Understand this: Some of us are not speaking from ideology. We are speaking from experience. And no, we were not paid or manipulated. We changed our minds when we finally saw the full picture. #Israël #lebanon #israel #FreeIranNow

Watch this brave Iranian woman absolutely school a clueless Western so-called activist. It is utterly embarrassing to see white European women, who enjoy absolute freedom and equal rights, stand in the streets of the UK to protect a misogynistic, terrorist regime that beats, tortures, and kills women for asking equality. Hypocrisy at the highest level!!

@Nick_Wilson3 Have you dd after s turnips before? Always plough here as top few inches poach a bit. Be interesting to see the results 👍

Field covered in worm middens after sheep on stubble turnips. Direct frill@leaves little disturbance to biological pathways

🚨 BREAKING: Saudi Arabia planned for a Hormuz crisis 45 years ago 🇸🇦 While the world depended on the Strait of Hormuz, Saudi Arabia quietly built a 1,200 KM oil pipeline from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. Why this matter? Nearly 20% of global oil flows through Hormuz. If it ever gets blocked, markets could panic. But Saudi crude can bypass the chokepoint entirely and still reach global markets. A quiet project from decades ago now looks like one of the smartest geopolitical energy moves ever.

@Petedefeet222 @Tiggertagg1 Good luck finding red at 90p

@Tiggertagg1 I agree with yr post (them robin bastids) but as red is devoid of tax, oil price increase will show up more. Example. Derv is 60p tax, 60p fuel = £1.20 Red is 0 tax, 60p fuel = £0.60 Now Add 30p fuel price to both Derv goes to £1.50 = 25% increase Red goes to 90p = 50% increase

I can understand fuel prices rising ! but what i can’t get my head around is derv on the forecourt up 18pence red delivered onto farm up somewhere in the region of 40to 60 pence increase according to reports! Whats that all about ????

Starmer is pandering to Islamist extremists to save his job — and those of his MPs. In 2024, a number of Labour MPs were ousted in traditionally safe Labour seats by pro-Gaza sectarian candidates. As it stands, high-profile figures in the Government like Wes Streeting and Jess Phillips look set to lose their seats at the next election. This was most apparent in the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, which exposed the growing influence of sectarian politics — and the threat it poses to Labour MPs. As Labour loses the Muslim voters it once relied on to win power, is it any surprise the Government has now published an official definition of Islamophobia — repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — and appointed a new Islamophobia tsar? Religion is already a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. The UK has a proud history of religious tolerance and already has laws in place that protect all religions — including Islam — from discrimination and hatred. The Government should enforce those laws, not create a new definition that risks introducing a de facto blasphemy law protecting only one faith. This definition will stifle legitimate debate and criticism of Islam. The inclusion of “prejudicial stereotyping” could silence those raising legitimate concerns, questioning practices such as halal slaughter, or discussing burkas and niqabs. This is a Muslim blasphemy law by the back door. Read more from @AllisonPearson below 👇