Andie Cox

@ivanalefebvreh What a load of old bollocks. London is safer now than it has been for ages. Well done Sadiq 👍

I didn’t expect this to go viral. I’m not even someone who follows politics that closely and this isn’t even about politics… it’s about safety and common sense. Follow me if you want to see more of what I’ve got to say. I’d appreciate it!

I had been living in London for 7 years of my life. I loved it. The architecture, the incredible people, the food. Everything was so beautiful. I’ve had to make a tough decision, though. I can’t live there anymore. It’s not the city I moved to years ago. The beautiful vibes have been replaced with an air of criminality and danger in so many parts. Sure, there are nice neighborhoods… but you need six or seven roommates to afford them. As much as I hate to say it, it’s not safe for a girl like me to live there any longer. I’m saying goodbye to the city I once called home. On to a new chapter.

Name a movie you've seen more than 7 times with just a GIF

@PaulMarcoe Plastic bags

4 things I think most GenX was afraid of. Acid Rain Quick sand Bermuda Triangle Amnesia What else?

@ScoutMocking @WestminsterWAG @anitathetweeter Exactly what I thought. She’s contradicting herself

@WestminsterWAG @anitathetweeter But you said in your original post that you would have been scared, so which is it? Also this has always happened all over the country, however at least now there tends to be cctv so you could report it, you know if you actually cared rather than just rage baiting.

I took the 94 bus home from dinner with an old school friend tonight. I was harassed by a man, while another sat next to me apparently in hysterics at what was going on. It was fine: I’m far too long in the tooth to care about a couple of dickheads. But had I been younger, I would have been quite scared. It’s not right that women should have to put up with this bullshit. Not right at all. London is not safe. @SadiqKhan

@London_W4 I’m sorry that happened to you, I’m not sure I like your description of them as a ‘third world person’ though

I was quiet on here this morning because on my way to Chiswick from East London, I got into an altercation with a third world person. He was drunk, stoned and looking for trouble. I explained to him that I was going to sit there in my seat in peace and he wasn’t going to bully me or push me around. There was some contact, but nothing bad. It was quite obvious though to everyone else in the carriage, that this wasn’t going to end well. Interestingly, as I sat there waiting for the next salvo, the train pulled into a station and a tfl Swat team of five blokes got on, grabbed him and pulled him out. Someone had obviously reported him. I have to say, I was very impressed by them. Dealt with swiftly and professionally. Good work.

@originalhartman I’m on it

Can we make this happen today?

@EnzoCherici @FXMC1957 I found this out from The Sopranos 🤣

@FXMC1957 The United States Congress officially recognized Antonio #Meucci as the first inventor of the telephone with Resolution No. 269 of June 11, 2002, recognizing his "telettrofono" invented in 1871. Bell only obtained the first official patent in 1876; Meucci's work predated it 😉🇮🇹

3 March 1847. Alexander Graham Bell was born in Edinburgh, Scotland. He's credited with creating the first practical commercial telephone system, though he did not, as is often assumed, invent the telephone.

The level of personal hostility directed at Keir Starmer over the last week deserves scrutiny in its own right. Not because he should be immune from criticism, but because the tone and intensity of the attacks tell us something unhealthy about the state of democratic politics. 1. Starmer is a conventional political figure. Cautious, legalistic, incremental. He frustrates people precisely because he is managerial rather than messianic. Yet the reaction to him often goes far beyond disagreement, tipping into visceral hatred more commonly reserved for authoritarians or demagogues. 2. Much of this hostility is disconnected from concrete policy. It is not about specific votes, proposals or outcomes, but about projection. A belief that Starmer embodies betrayal, bad faith or hidden malice. That kind of politics runs on suspicion rather than evidence. 3. This matters because democracy depends on the assumption of good faith among opponents. You can think a leader is wrong, timid, or misguided without believing they are fundamentally illegitimate. Once politics becomes moralised to the point of demonisation, compromise is reframed as treachery and pluralism as weakness. 4. The pattern is familiar. In fragmented, polarised systems, anger concentrates not on extremists, whose intentions are clear, but on moderates, who disappoint maximalists on all sides. The centre becomes the lightning rod precisely because it resists totalising narratives. 5. There is also a media and online dynamic at work. Incentives reward outrage, not proportionality. Algorithms favour contempt over analysis. Over time, this creates a political culture in which relentless personal attack feels normal, even virtuous, rather than disgusting. 6. None of this is a defence of Starmer’s decisions, instincts or record. Those should be argued over robustly as you do in a democracy. The problem is the substitution of critique with hostility and the quiet erosion of democratic norms that follows when political opponents are treated as enemies rather than rivals. 7. A democracy cannot function if every election is framed as an existential struggle against internal evil. At some point, the target may change, but the damage to trust, restraint and culture remains.

@RoryStewartUK I think we may need another emergency podcast please. 😬

@RoryStewartUK happy birthday Rory! I think you might need to do an emergency pod…

@thetimes I don’t actually think Betty was a narcissist

Psychotherapist Kathleen Saxton explains how to recognise the signs of a narcissistic parent and begin healing to prevent invisible wounds from affecting future relationships

@BrooksElms 💪

* Are you a screenwriter panicking that AI is about to steal your creative thunder? What if I told you we could settle the "human vs machine creativity" debate once and for all with a mad experiment where YOUR story idea could be the stone that slays Goliath? I'm Brooks. Been making films for 30 years, proud WGA member, and I also love coaching fellow storytellers. Honestly? I'm tired of all the kooky speculation about whether AI can actually develop compelling stories or if it's just fancy autocomplete with delusions of grandeur. I want the TRUTH. So here's what we're doing. I'm running the MAN ~VS~ MACHINE: STORY DEV SHOWDOWN. You submit your movie premise - just one or two sentences about your story idea - and we'll develop it using three different methods: 🤖Pure AI prompts only vs 😌 🤖 Me coaching you one-on-one with AI as a tool vs 😌😌 Or old-school human-to-human peer development with zero artificial intelligence Nine concepts get chosen - three in each lane. Then comes the fun part. We put all the developed concepts through blind ratings poll for clarity and emotional impact. (Nobody knows which method created which story.) After that? Live group call where we reveal everything, break down what worked, what bombed, and why. Whether your concept gets picked or not, you get access to that live breakdown call where you'll see professional concept development happening in real time. Plus: you'll finally know if AI should be your creative partner, your replacement, or just something you politely ignore while it sits in the corner making weird robot noises. The deadline is Wednesday, August 6th at noon Pacific. This whole thing is completely free because my hope is you'll love the experience so much that you'll want to work with me on your actual projects later. And if not? Well, at least we'll have worked together to solve one of the biggest creative questions of our time. Ready to find out if the machines are coming for our jobs or if human creativity still reigns supreme? Reply with the strong arm emoji "💪" and I'll DM you the submission link. #screenwriting #storytelling #AI #creativity

@ayaonx La La Land

@Hickman2722 @ShadowofEzra Read the news do you?

@ShadowofEzra Good, we don't want her back! She has to do all her gardening because she doesn't have the illegal immigrants there to do it for her! 🤣

Ellen DeGeneres has confirmed she fled the US after Trump won, admitting she left America following election night. Now living with her chickens in the UK, she says everything there is better. The people, the animals, the villages. She is never coming back. Will anyone miss her?

@TRobinsonNewEra What a ridiculous thing to say. That woman has done more to protect women and children than any single person in the country I bet. She is an absolute credit to the Labour Party.

Musk was right about Jess Phillips. Here is Labour's Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, looking at her phone and giggling in Parliament yesterday during the rape gang debate.

It is easy…tempting indeed…to be distracted by the sound & fury of the battle between two powerful men – the billionaire who owns X and has turned it into a megaphone and the British Prime Minister. However, this story is much more important than a clash between Elon Musk and Keir Starmer. It is about how to protect girls and young women from terrible sexual abuse. For more than 10 years official reports and police investigations have revealed that some have covered up and others have played down the fact that gangs of men - mainly but not exclusively of Pakistani origin - have targeted, groomed, raped and tortured mainly white girls. Musk has attacked and abused the PM and his safeguarding minister Jess Philips for refusing to agree to a new inquiry into what really happened. The Conservatives and Reform UK have echoed his call if not his language (which, the former head of counter terrorism, has warned risks inciting violence). Now the one woman who had not commented when so many others had has broken our silence. Professor Alexis Jay - who chaired the Independent Inquiry into child sexual abuse which reported more than two years ago and who led the investigation into the cover-up of masss rape in Rotherham more than a decade ago - has told me on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme there is no need for a new inquiry. What’s more she argues that it would get in the way of what needs to be done – implementing the findings of her report which was published more than two years ago. Professor Jay refuses to comment on the words used by Musk or, indeed, Farage or the shadow Justice secretary – the Conservative Robert Jenrick who has argued that what is to blame is mass migration of millions of people with what he calls "alien cultures". However, she had a clear message for them all. Those who "politicise child sexual abuse" are ignoring the needs of the victims she says. In another interview on the Today Programme I asked Robert Jenrick whether he accepted the Conservatives in government for 14 years had failed to do enough to tackle a problem that was first highlighted more than a decade ago. Why, I asked him, had Tory ministers failed to implement the recommendations of the inquiry? Why had they refused calls for a second wider national inquiry when they had the power to set one up. I asked him whether he’d ever raise these issues as a minister in the Home Office and pointed out that there was no mention in the parliamentary record Hansard of him ever raising the subject before Elon Musk did. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, I asked Jenrisk whether he now wanted to stop immigration from those "alien cultures" he condemns despite the fact that immigration from, say, Pakistan has recorded since Brexit and that many of Pakistani heritage have and are serving this country proudly - not least the former Home Secretary Sajid Javid and the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. You can hear his answers by listening back to the Today programme on @bbcsounds at 8.10 (that's 2 hours & 10 minutes into the programme) and Professor Jay's at 7.30ish (one hour & 30 minutes into the programme)Jenrick, like Messrs Farage and Musk insists that much more is now known about what happened in the past and much more needs to be known about what might be happening now right across the country. So they argue that there is a case for that second enquiry. Jay argues that that would distract from implementing the protections that are needed now and which the Home Secretary hastily announced last night - making it an offence to know about but not report or to actively cover up child sex abuse and improving the collection of the data on who the offenders really are.Having spent years investigating these crimes - unlike some who read a few tweets before firing off their own ill informed opinions - she is clear about two things. Firstly, the scandals exposed in Rotherham and Oldham - the covering up of mass child abuse - has undoubtedly happened elsewhere any may still be happening now. Secondly, child sexual abuse is not limited to any one group in society as repeated scandals have revealed. I've written this long post to put into context the clips of the interviews I'm also posting which I know will be taken out of context by some who want to abuse their political opponents more than they want to stop the abuse of young girls

@CrowleyOnAir @gene_band @ship_soho Oh wow. I loved them. London , Can You Wait is such a beautiful song.

It was so lovely to see these three amigos @gene_band this afternoon in but where else, legendary rock n roll watering hole @ship_soho . Really was good to see you & catch up fellas.

Hello! Does anyone know of a sound/lighting person who is available for 2 performances at @CamdenFringe on 10th and 11th August at 3pm, please? Tech needs will be pretty basic. Thank you

@karenmitchell__ Jimmy Savile is a classic example of this

Why do narcissists/psychopaths/coercive controllers (predators) love working with or running charities? 1. They are less likely to be suspected of nefarious intent. 2. Governance structures are minimal or non-existent so it is easier to steal money, purchase goods for personal use or employ family and friends at high wages who will not report them if they are exposed. 3. It is good for their image, their constructed facade. 4. Regulatory bodies for charities in most countries have limited resources to hold charities accountable. N/p/cc will often go on boards or become ambassadors for charities that support causes associated with their anti-social behaviours. For example, domestic abusers might connect with DV charities and paedophiles with children’s charities. I know of 3 charities run by narcissists/psychopaths/coercive controllers.

Finally finished Detectorists. I’ve enjoyed lots of comedy series over the years but none have made my heart quite so full as this. Every second of it has been a huge, warm hug. This scene with Terry and Shiela absolutely killed me. A moment of simple joy and contentment. 😭