Angry Biologist

@Matt_Pinner No. And not even if I am NOT there I want to protect all the other women and girls too!!

To the women who are on this app, be honest Are you OKAY with a man claiming to be a woman using the ladies room if you're in there? 🤷🤔

Indeed Andrew it is a gross waste of taxpayers money to investigate an anonymous complaint about a tweet/post containing such benign content. Your response seems logical and considered. I think it more offensive that our PM and King are seen shaking hands in public, welcoming a person that is also shown in other images to be holding severed heads and gleefully displaying them as trophies. This is definitely something that should be investigated.

@ABridgen In my experience, the anonymous complaint is usually submitted by someone in a powerful political position. And the police act on it so as to bank a favour when they might need one.

@Jamesal51564206 @JeanHatchet @gilroy_ter39952 By descent and by faith of

@JeanHatchet @gilroy_ter39952 When was a Jew murdered in England, because they were Jewish by an "Islamist terrorist" You sound very Jewish with these lies you're telling. Typical kikey behaviour

If the Jew Hunters come to your area and knock on your door - you don’t have to engage and you can close the door without saying a word to them. Then they don’t know if you support them or you don’t. Afterwards what you should do, if you are Jewish or support Jewish people in your community is go online and complain to the police about feeling intimidated by them and scared of what they will do with your information. The police are saying they will only stop them if reports are made from householders. So please do it. Stand up to the new fascists in High Viz and Keffiyehs. An online complaint doesn’t take long. #SheffieldJewHunt

@LynneofEarth @buc97552 @RoyalFamily Yes but we've NEVER had Ramadan broadcasts either. I just want equality, so major festivals of all our faths get a mention, or just Christian ones only he has, after all, sworn to be "Defender of the Faith".........

@buc97552 @RoyalFamily Christmas day is enough for anyone. Get a grip. We've never had Easter TV broadcasts! I just saw a message of wishes from the Royal Family

🐣✝️ Wishing a joyous Easter Sunday to Christians celebrating in the UK, the Commonwealth and around the world today.

Flashback: 13-years-old girl in Somalia was raped by a grown Muslim man. Instead of punishing him, the Islamic Sharia court sentenced HER to death. t.co/DWR1YrZlFR Why? Because her Muslim attacker—a married man—claimed she had “seduced” him by simply existing in public. The local Islamic court agreed and ruled that she was guilty of adultery. Hundreds of Muslim men gathered to stone her to death in cold blood. They laughed, cheered, and shouted “Allahu Akbar” while she screamed in agony and begged for mercy. 🚨 THIS is Sharia justice. THIS is what “progressives” defend when they push Islamic law as a legitimate legal system. 🚨 Here is link to a report about this horrific incident: nbcnews.com/id/wbna2748497…

🚨NEWS: Ryan Bridge, leader of Raise the Colours, has been arrested on suspicion of religiously and racially aggravated harassment. His crime? Putting up St Georges and Union flags across Britain Flying your flag can now get you arrested. Britain is a police state.

My cab driver last week was former Afghan army and had been in the UK ~ 20yrs He told me Afghan women are not the same as women in the West so don’t need work and education The atmosphere became so hostile I got out before my stop The problem didn’t stay in Afghanistan

Common rights in medieval England were not vague and customary feelings of entitlement to shared space. They were legal rights. Specific, named, enforceable in court, and recorded in documents that have survived in county archives for six hundred years. They had Latin names because the law that recognised them spoke Latin, and the Latin names were used by lawyers in cases that went all the way to the King's Bench, because when someone tried to take your common rights from you, the matter was serious enough to fight. Pannage: the right to graze pigs in the common woodland, typically in autumn when the acorns fell. A peasant family with pannage rights could run a pig through the forest from Michaelmas to Martinmas, the six-week window when the acorns were on the ground and the pig would do on its own what no other feeding regime could match in efficiency. At the end of it, the pig was slaughtered. The family had meat and fat for the winter. Estovers: the right to take wood from common land for fuel and building. Connected to the pig in ways that become apparent when you understand that pigs need shelter, that shelter needs timber, and that a peasant without access to common woodland could build neither. Turbary: the right to cut peat for fuel. Without it, you couldn't render the fat. Without rendered fat, the meat storage problem became acute. Agistment: the right to graze livestock on common pasture. The cow. The sheep. The geese. The animals that provided the milk, the wool, the eggs: the daily protein that made the feast-day meat an addition rather than the only protein the family would see. These rights were not given to the peasant by a generous lord. They were ancient, established by use and custom extending back beyond written record, recognised by common law as property rights that could not simply be removed. They were removed anyway. The Enclosure Acts between 1750 and 1850 converted six million acres of common land to private ownership through a mechanism so elegant in its institutional violence that you can only admire it: Acts of Parliament, proposed by the landlords who would benefit, approved by the Parliament the same landlords largely controlled, with compensation procedures so inadequate and so expensive to access that the people losing their rights rarely managed to use them. The pannage rights went with the woodland. The agistment rights went with the common pasture. The pig went with the pannage. The cow went with the agistment. What replaced them, for the people who lost everything, was wages. Wages paid by the landlords who had just enclosed their common land. Wages that were not enough to buy the meat that the common rights had previously provided for free. They called it agricultural improvement. They meant it made them richer. The peasant called it something else, in words that didn't survive in the legal record because the people who wrote the legal record were not taking notes on what the peasant called it.

Iran is a blueprint of what Islam does to a country if left to rot it from within. Dragging society backwards. Free Iran 🇮🇷 Javid Shah.

The media and world leaders ignored the massacre of over 40,000 Iranians by the Islamic regime in January.

To all who argue that King Charles had no obligation to issue an Easter message, can you explain why he felt the obligation to issue an Eid and Ramadan message?

Free for 270 years. Nobody ever asks why. 🇬🇧 In 1753 a British doctor called Hans Sloane died. He left 71,000 objects to the nation. On one condition. It must be free. For everybody. Forever. Parliament raised the money through a national lottery. And built the world’s first public museum. Not for the King. Not for the Church. For all of humanity. The idea was simple. Human history belongs to all of humanity. Not just the powerful. Not just a few. For everyone. 270 years later it still hasn’t charged a penny. 8 million objects. Two million years of human history. The Rosetta Stone. The Lewis Chessmen. The Sutton Hoo helmet. All of it free. Still today. The idea Britain invented in 1753 changed how the entire world keeps its history. This channel exists because people like you chose to make it happen. Thousands of stories like this one are waiting to be told. Battles won. Names forgotten. History that belongs to all of us but gets told to none of us. If you can afford to help keep it free for everyone else: proudofus.co.uk/support Be Part Of Us. Be Proud Of Us. 🇬🇧

Bill Maher — a self-described atheist who regularly challenges religion — stopped his show to say something that most mainstream media won’t. Speaking on Real Time in September 2025, he called out the near-total silence surrounding the systematic targeting of Christians in Nigeria. “I’m not a Christian, but they are systematically killing the Christians in Nigeria,” Maher said. “They’ve killed over 100,000 since 2009. They’ve burned 18,000 churches.” He called it a genocide attempt — and then asked the question that cut to the heart of it: “Where are the kids protesting this? They don’t care because the Jews aren’t involved.” Nigeria has been confirmed as the deadliest place in the world to be a Christian, with more believers killed for their faith there than the rest of the world combined. And just this past Palm Sunday, dozens more were massacred in Plateau State. When even Bill Maher is more willing to say it than the major news networks, something has gone very wrong in our public conversation. Why do you think the persecution of Christians in Nigeria gets so little attention?

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."

@ThatTylerPopp @BenMFreeman Which particular atrocities?? Hamas lie you know. War is awful but what on earth was Israel supposed to do after October 7th??

@BenMFreeman If you had an ounce of humanity in you you would stop supporting the atrocities of Israel. You make that choice every day. And it says something about you. Many jews are the fiercest fighters against Israel's actions. Because what it does harms all jews. Not just its victims.

I have been fortunate. I have lost very few friends to anti-Jewish hostility. But today, there was one that affected me. Years ago, when I was living in Hong Kong, I had a relationship with someone. We were close. Not casually, but in the way that leaves a mark. We drifted out of touch, but I always carried a sense of warmth toward him. An appreciation for what we had been to each other. Recently, I came across emails we had sent each other. Reading them brought it back. So I reached out. Just a simple message. Hello. He replied kindly, but told me he had seen my online presence and could not engage in a friendship with me. We had not spoken in years. Our lives had moved on. And yet when I read his reply, my stomach dropped. I felt sick. A kind of shock that is hard to explain unless you have experienced it. Because this was not rejection in the ordinary sense. It was not about something between us. It was about what I represent to him now. That is what makes it different. There is something deeply disorienting about being rejected by someone who once knew you well, not because of who you are in relation to them, but because of what they have come to believe about you from a distance. About Jews. About Israel. About what those things are supposed to mean. He did not come back to me with questions. He did not try to understand who I am. And just like that, someone who once knew me became someone who no longer could. It never stops being shocking. And it never stops being painful.

The Man Who Paid In & The Man Who Paid Nothing. Meet Frank, the man who paid in. Frank turned 80 last winter. He grafted 52 years as a builder in Manchester, his hands and back are broken from laying bricks in pouring rain. Every week he paid his National Insurance. Never claimed benefits. Never broke the law. He raised two kids on a council estate, paid his taxes and did his bit for the country he loves. Now he shuffles to the post office in the same coat he’s worn since 2018. His old Nokia phone barely holds the charge. His State Pension is £241.30 a week, just over £12,500 a year, but after gaps, Frank gets less. He counts every penny. Some weeks it’s heating or eating. Last winter around 2,500 people in England died from cold associated causes. Frank keeps the thermostat at 15 degrees and wears jumpers indoors. "I’m not living," he tells his neighbour. "I’m just existing." His wife, Margaret, has been in a care home for two years, dementia stealing her away. Frank struggles to keep their old car on the road for weekly visits. One more breakdown and those trips could end. Every pension day is the same. Frank walks past the bookies where young fighting age men fresh off small boats shout, laugh and slap down stacks of cash twice as thick as his weekly pension. He keeps his head down, clutching his wallet, praying nobody follows him home. His street no longer feels like his street. Fewer familiar faces. Foreign languages. The corner shop is now a Turkish barbers. He feels all alone in the city he once helped build. Meet Ahmed, the man who paid nothing. Ahmed arrived on a dinghy last summer, one of 41,472 Channel crossings in 2025, mostly young men from Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Sudan. He tossed his documents into the sea, then claimed asylum the moment the dinghy touched the beach. No passport. No papers. No contributions. The Home Office puts him in a hotel. Heating on full. Three meals a day. Security on the door.Ahmed strolls the streets in new clothes and the latest iPhone, using free bus shuttles twice a day, drinking and laughing with friends outside the same bookies Frank avoids. He broke immigration rules entering the country uninvited. Once granted asylum, the door opens to UK benefits and housing. Frank paid in all his life and obeyed every rule. He built the Britain that now houses Ahmed. Ahmed has paid nothing and doesn't obey the rules, he receives shelter, warmth, food, free transport and pocket money while Frank rations food, huddles under blankets to keep warm and constantly worries about money. Tonight as Ahmed relaxes in a warm hotel room with new Nike trainers by the bed, wondering what’s for dinner. Frank sits in his cold home wondering why a lifetime of hard work brings only deprivation. This story is repeating in towns and cities across the country. This isn’t fairness. This is a betrayal. #UKNews #UKPolitics #StopTheBoats

Two clear examples where face coverings should absolutely be banned ASAP: In court — I’m sorry, but you don’t have a right to anonymity. If this is allowed, then all criminals should be able to wear balaclavas in court. When standing for election — I’m sorry, but who on earth is under that? How can anyone be sure the person they’re voting for is actually the one behind it?