Torteval Dairy

I don't think criminals should be allowed to appear in court like this.

Former Labour anti-corruption minister Tulip Siddiq was sentenced to 6 years in prison in Bangladesh for corruption. A formal red notice request to Interpol has been made after she failed to respond to a Bangladesh arrest warrant. How will 'international law' Starmer respond?

The silence is deafening.

Says the woman who calls those horrified by the rape gangs 'dog-whistlers'

Thank you to @marksandspencer for speaking up about crime. I hope other retailers follow.

This week the National Education Union has vowed to stop a Reform government- by urging its 500,000 teacher members to campaign against Reform in the classroom. This is not education. It’s indoctrination. And it’s against the law.

A. A 39 year old man describes himself as a ‘regular girl’. B. Describes me as ‘rich and powerful’. I am a disabled legal aid lawyer. C. Claims ‘B’ makes it hard for him to ‘push back’. The only power I have are my words and that I am not afraid to use them. I can see that in 2026 this is great power indeed. The only argument gender identity ideologues appear to have is that they will kill themselves if exposed to any argument, challenge or criticism they do not like. I do not agree that law and policy should be determined by the most manipulative. I hope others are with me on this

@Plaid_Cymru came to our house with leaflets. A woman asked me if we would vote for Plaid. I said, no, because you don't protect women and children's rights. She said, Plaid believes in equality. I replied that I didn't, I want discrimination, women only spaces where men in frocks are not allowed. According to the law. She wanted examples, Supreme Court ruling FWS -v- Scottish Ministers, she'd never heard of it. 'Trans-ing' children is wrong, she wasn't sure. Plaid's own web-site about 'trans' rights. She didn't know there was one. Hopeless, it's hopeless. Don't vote for Plaid.

I believe my neighbour may be a dangerous right wing extremist. This is not a frivolous claim. He recently attended a Ricky Gervais show. He often pays for things with cash, and he has said he will probably check out the new Harry Potter series. I'm literally shaking right now.

🚨 Douglas Murray DESTROYS BBC Newsnight Presenter Douglas Murray calmly dismantles the BBC on his “less Islam” comment: Nick Watt: “We should have less Islam in this country. Was that a wise phrase?” Murray: “Perfectly wise phrase… This country had a wildly stupid and lax immigration policy for decades.” On the bomber Salman Abedi: “One of the sons they gave this country was Salman Abedi who at 22 killed 22 young girls… one for every year of life this country gave him.” Then the key logic: “Jihadist extremism, jihadism comes from Islam. Therefore, if it’s 1%, 5%, 15% of people of the Muslim faith who follow that version of it, you’ve got a hell of a problem. And the more people, this is simple math, the larger the number of people who are followers of a faith that has not solved the extremism problem in its midst… the more extremism you will have. You don’t get that from the Catholic Church… or the Anglican church.” Murray closes powerfully: “Nobody else is as incredibly slow in learning as the British media and political class when it comes to this problem. Why is it the case that Saturday after Saturday we have thousands of people going through major British cities who support the death cults who would murder Jews and the rest of us next? That’s a question you and Newsnight should answer.” Countries with less Islam have less Islamic terrorism. Straight talk the BBC clearly struggles with.

In just the last nine months, at least six UK Pride activists have been charged with, or convicted of, child sexual abuse offences. And these are just the ones whose crimes were serious enough, and Pride activism well known enough, to be reported on

🚨The state pension & triple lock is the hot topic of the day — but almost no one is discussing what actually happened and why we’re in this mess. Instead, governments are dividing older and younger generations with perverse gaslighting. Here’s the truth: National Insurance was explicitly sold for generations as a contributory scheme. You paid your “stamps” to build entitlement to your state pension — exactly like road tax was introduced and meant to fund the Road Fund for building and maintaining roads. Both started with a clear promise: pay in for a specific purpose. Then governments quietly broke the ring-fencing/promise. Road hypothecation ended in 1937. NI became mostly pay-as-you-go — today’s workers funding today’s pensioners, with surpluses spent on the priorities of the day (NHS, welfare, whatever suited the government). Why are we here now? • Collapsing birth rates since the 1960s + longer lifespans. • Mass immigration that failed to fix the worker-to-retiree ratio as promised. • Decades of political short-termism: treating the National Insurance Fund like a slush fund instead of properly ring-fencing or investing it for the future. See Singapore for the gold standard. Now the gaslighting ramps up: “No one paid into a pot.” “It’s just a transfer from poorer young to wealthier old.” “The triple lock is unaffordable.” This is classic deception by government. They collected contributions under one set of expectations, spent the money elsewhere, then rebranded the promise when demographics caught up. Pensioners who worked 40-50 years and upheld their side of the intergenerational contract are suddenly the villains. It’s perverse. Instead of admitting “we broke the funding model,” politicians pit generations against each other. The young aren’t subsidising the old out of nowhere — they’re paying into the same broken system their elders did. Honour the existing promises to those who already paid in. Cut the real waste first (illegal migration costs, foreign aid, Net Zero subsidies, welfare bloat). Then reform properly for the future: move towards individual accounts with actual investment and returns — like Singapore’s CPF. Stop the divisive nonsense. Fix the root causes instead of rewriting history and turning the country against itself. Feel free to engage👇🏽 #TripleLock #StatePension

@bullrike @HJoyceGender @STILLTish They only dip their toes in. They haven't helped at all really.

@TortevalD @HJoyceGender @STILLTish That’s not true. They’ve had gender critical stuff for at the very least 5 years now.

Now that it's safe, the Eye has something to say about it. I almost think I'd prefer them to maintain their cowardly decade-long silence

@oldfarmhorace Very interesting thank you Horace. Does this mean destroyers are nowhere near as vital as cheap drones or is the traditional weaponry important to demonstrate wealth and power?

Dear Mr. Armin Papperger, CEO of Rheinmetall, When you referred to Ukrainian drone manufacturers as “Ukrainian housewives with 3D printers” you revealed just how deeply the European defense establishment still fails to understand the nature of modern warfare. This is not about emotion. It is about battlefield reality. Here are the facts your industry refuses to acknowledge: In 2025 alone, Ukrainian drones carried out 819,737 confirmed strikes. They caused 90 percent of all Russian combat losses, more than all other weapons systems combined. TAF alone produces up to 100к FPV drones monthly. In any given 90-day period, my company’s products alone achieve more confirmed strikes than your entire fleet of equipment has across its full combat history in every conflict. And most importantly, I built this company and achieved these results in two years, not fifty. Think about that. Our drones generate more kinetic effect in three months than your flagship platforms have in half a century. Why? Because the battlefield has changed, and your business model has not. •Russian electronic warfare has made GPS-guided Western munitions such as Excalibur and GMLRS nearly ineffective. •Expensive and complex systems designed for wars with air superiority and traditional peer-to-peer combat have become easy prey for drones costing $500, attacking them from above. •The cost-to-effect ratio has been turned upside down: one 120 mm Rheinmetall shell or one anti-tank missile costs more than a dozen of our drones, and yet our drones still win. This is not a “Lego game.” It is industrial Darwinism in real time. We iterate every week. We print parts in basements and ship 100к strike systems per month, while your engineers still require three to five years and hundreds of millions of euros in certification costs for even a minor upgrade. The war in Ukraine is not a temporary anomaly. It is the first true drone-industrial war. And it has already proven that outdated European platforms, no matter how expensive or “serious” they may seem, are becoming less and less relevant unless they integrate the very technologies you mock. So when you say, “this is not innovation,” I hear something else: “We do not want to admit that the future is being written in Ukrainian workshops, not in Düsseldorf boardrooms.” #MadeByHousewives is trending for a reason. Because these “housewives” destroy more enemy equipment every month than entire European armies do in full campaigns. And they do it while your industry continues to sell 20th-century solutions at 21st prices. The invitation remains open, Mr. Papperger. Stop laughing at the kitchen table. Come and learn how tomorrow’s war is actually being fought. Because the next time someone asks, “Who needs tanks in the age of drones?”, the answer may be simpler than you think: Whoever still believes in 1979 will lose to whoever is building in 2026. With respect, but with facts, Oleksandr Yakovenko “Ukrainian housewives” Founder TAF

I never thought in my lifetime I would see a king and a prime minister welcoming a terrorist. This is Britain 2026!

@ABridgen Nothing.

As threatened Iran has attacked a British target. The British Castrol oil company in Erbil, Iraq. What do you think Starmer’s response will be ?

@CleansedTweets We are.

How do people who lived through the 80s and 90s stomach today. I can’t fathom it. Surely you must be depressed?

@oldfarmhorace @shanaka86 Really thought-provoking.

Kipling saw this long ago in Arithmetic on the Frontier. The Empire could spend a fortune educating, training, transporting and equipping a young British officer, only for him to be brought down by a man with a far cheaper weapon. The arithmetic was cruel then and it is cruel now. Reports suggest Britain’s stock of Storm Shadow missiles is looking worryingly thin, while Iran and others have helped show that modern war is increasingly about cheap mass rather than exquisite scarcity. A Storm Shadow is a magnificent weapon, but it is also expensive, limited in number, and slow to replace. A cheap drone is the opposite. It may be crude, but if you can build them by the thousand and force your enemy to burn through missiles worth millions to stop them, then the rich man’s way of war starts to look like a luxury hobby. The West still fights like a craftsman making fine watches. Its enemies are happy to churn out blunt instruments by the crate. Kipling had the measure of it. The odds are on the cheaper man. In 2026, the odds may be on the cheapest drone.

BREAKING: Britain has fewer than 50 Storm Shadow cruise missiles left. The stockpile that once exceeded 200 was drained over two years of transfers to Ukraine to help Kyiv strike Russian targets deep behind the front line. The missiles worked. They hit command posts and ammunition depots and naval headquarters across occupied Ukraine and Crimea. They helped Ukraine survive. And now Britain has almost none left for itself, during a war being launched from its own airfields against a country that just hit a British oil facility with drones. Brimstone anti-armour missiles sit at 25 to 35 percent of pre-war stocks. Paveway IV precision-guided bombs, the same weapon the RAF used over Libya and Syria, are at 30 to 40 percent. The National Audit Office estimates that Britain can sustain high-intensity combat operations for three to six weeks before requiring American resupply. Three to six weeks. The Iran war is already in its fifth week. If Britain were fighting it rather than hosting it, the cupboard would already be empty. The Army is 10,000 soldiers below target. Type 45 destroyers suffer chronic propulsion failures requiring six to twelve months of repair. The F-35 and Typhoon fleet operates at 60 to 70 percent availability. The industrial base that would replenish stocks runs on rare-earth magnets manufactured in China, the same China that controls 90 percent of the permanent magnets in every guided missile Britain would need to fire and is currently being asked to broker the peace. Any direct involvement beyond basing would require 8 to 15 billion pounds in emergency supplemental spending. National debt exceeds 100 percent of GDP. There is no majority in Parliament for funding a war the Prime Minister says is not Britain’s, fought with weapons Britain does not have, replenished by supply chains controlled by a country Britain needs to broker the ceasefire. This is why Starmer says “not our war.” Not because of principle. Not because of legality, although his own advisors have told him the strikes are legally questionable. Not because of Iraq, although the ghost of Blair hangs over every press conference. Because of arithmetic. Britain gave its missiles to Ukraine. It gave its bases to America. It gave its diplomatic capital to a 35-nation meeting about reopening Hormuz “after the fighting stops.” And it has nothing left to give except words, which cost nothing and accomplish less. Trump knows this. He mocked the Royal Navy in the Telegraph interview. He dismissed Starmer’s windmills. He called NATO a “paper tiger” because the paper is literal: Britain’s defence capability exists on paper. On the tarmac and in the magazines and in the recruitment offices, the numbers tell a different story. The story says that one of the six largest economies on earth, the country that once ruled a quarter of the planet, cannot sustain a shooting war for longer than six weeks without calling Washington for resupply. The bases are full. The aircraft are American. The missiles are gone. The debt is real. And the Prime Minister stands at the podium and says this is not our war while the war takes off from our runways carrying weapons we could not replace if we tried. Britain is not refusing to fight. Britain cannot fight. The doctrine is not a choice. It is an inventory report. And the inventory says zero. open.substack.com/pub/shanakaans…