Big and small pundits … which actually care?

 There are traps and pitfalls for every pundit, big or small. The biggest of all is this man:

All power to Rupert I say, because he’s an MP genuinely trying to stick up for the ordinary person but no power to the other pollies. Deryl is one of us, in our “small to medium pundit range” … en masse, she and we do have power but it still requires a focal point, e.g. big pundit Rupert.

Leilani is more the big stage and podium style, like Mr. Farage, says very sensible things but never actually starts any actions.  The two mutual followers of mine (above) are Deryl and Janey.

Civil war?  Yes, Them are pushing it so hard, provoking us almost beyond endurance … the henchmen and karens say it’s necessary we suffer in order to usher in this new nirvana … marxism 101 … truth is they want slaughter and utter misery for all indigenous westerners.

Them want a revolution in the streets or all out war, pogroms and counter-pogroms … these are truly sick psychos. We do not want.  There it is.

It’s Simple Dependency, Sonia, And We Can’t Afford It Anymore…

And apart from that, given what some MPs consider to be moral behaviour, I'll take no instruction from the likes of them....

Since the pandemic, the number of working-age people out of work as a result of long-term illness has swelled by more than 750,000. There are also more people claiming health-related benefits – both means-tested out-of-work benefits, and the personal independence payment (Pip) that helps meet the additional costs of disability, which isn’t means-tested and is paid regardless of someone’s work status. One in 10 working-age adults now receive health-related benefits, up from one in 14 before the pandemic.

How on earth did we ever get to this? Well, in part, it stems from the Tories eagerness to fudge the umemployment figures: 

No other wealthy country has experienced a trend as marked as this, suggesting it’s not purely about Covid or the cost of living (though it’s worth noting the UK is only now spending roughly the average for comparable countries on disability benefits). It’s more likely to be a product of how these have interacted with the UK’s public services and welfare system.

The low rates of out-of-work benefits for those who lose their jobs – eroded since 2010 – have probably pushed more people towards applying for disability benefits than in other countries.

And now someone's attempting to do something about this state of affairs, there's outrage.  

Starmer aides have been busy briefing that cutting these benefits will resonate with swing voters. That seems unlikely to placate the Labour MPs – including frontbenchers and the normally loyal – who are angry about this not because they think it’s a vote loser, but because they think it’s immoral. Benefits have been pared to the bone since 2010 by successive Conservative chancellors – the poorest decile of families with children lost an astounding £6,000 a year on average between 2010 and 2024 as a result of changes to the tax-benefit system.

They didn't 'lose it', though, they simply should never have had it. We shouldn't be paying people to be idle.  

How many "Brits" are there?

Quick note ... Wolf is one of that select bunch, of which I'm one, admiring Rupert's actions so far, not Farage's.

If you're at a loose end, bored, you might like to check this out too before you go:

https://jameshigham.substack.com/p/wooly-bully

... which is a quick look at the bully dog, which is Julia's area of expertise more than mine.

In A Government Of Failed Lawyers, Legal Caution Trumps Everything....

Tomorrow should be a watershed moment for children and families as the Online Safety Act comes into effect. But regrettably, it feels as if we are going backwards. The regulator Ofcom has decided to deploy timidity where ambition is needed. Rather than focusing on reducing harm and preventing tragedies, its approach seems aimed at minimising the economic costs for tech firms cleaning up the harm they have caused. Instead of prioritising the fundamental principles of child safety, one minister indicated that the codes coming into force were consulted on to make them “judicial review proof”. Legal caution trumps children’s safety.

And he's outraged because he has skin in the game, his daughter having killed herself. Purely down to social media? No. Obviously not, but he's not going to look inwards when there's a third party to blame. 

Teenagers are no longer at risk only from being exposed to suicide ideation and self-harm content by aggressive algorithms, a preventable harm that cost my daughter Molly her life.

Global law enforcement agencies are clear that some young people, often struggling with their mental health, are being groomed to commit violent acts against themselves and others on video or live streams. These groups are driven by the same “fluid ideologies” and violent motives that have been thrust into the spotlight by Axel Rudakubana and the horrific events in Southport.

Yes, he's seemlessly switched from 'social media will tell your kids to kill themselves!' to 'social media will tell your kids to kill other kids!'. 

I want to be clear that the secretary of state’s inaction and inertia will cost more young lives. His proposals are the sticking-plaster politics that the prime minister has rightly said he rejects. Bereaved parents are now losing trust in Kyle. We very much believe the public is on our side – 85% of parents want stronger laws. Parents want the government to act decisively on the side of children and families.

Why don't parents act decisively themselves? Why do they need the government to do it? If you think social media is a risk, don't buy your children a smartphone.  

Of course, there are those who refute this, putting the free expression of platforms over reasonable and necessary measures to protect children from harm. Among them is a hawkish White House, which has issued an executive order that instructs officials to “recommend appropriate actions to counter” the Online Safety Act.

UK parents are watching, too. They do not want their children’s safety jeopardised by an exported agenda written by tech libertarians and JD Vance. They expect to be heard by their own government.

The answer's in your own hands. You're the grown ups here. Stop looking to Big Nanny Government to blame.  

The glib Pied Piper leading Reform astray

First various s/shots from X where it hit the fan overnight, then further comment from me.

Many decades ago, I thought Old Labour might have been the only ones to care. Then, realising that people had to work and produce things, Maggie’s time, had me leaning that way, even despite the poll tax and knowing the damage Heath had done.

The logical move was Kipper, Farage was saying the right things but there was trouble in the ranks, then he left.  All right, along came TBP … we saw that as the way until he sold out to the Tories.

A third time we trusted, with Reform.  Tice calling supporters of TR “that lot” was the start of it, Farage’s dismissals … but still Reform seemed the way, at grassroots level.  Then came the unconscionable behaviour of Farage and Yusuf against the Reform MP making all the running, while Starmer crossed the floor to chat with “Nige”.

Dear reader who cares about the ordinary Brit … which of them rings true to you?  As someone who himself can string sentences together, I know the glib Pied Piper type very, very well.

Reform is being led back to demi-Toryism, controlled opposition. So many Reformers simply haven’t woken up to this yet.

The answer?  In your constituency, whoever reflects your politics, what you wish achieved, whether or not he/she can alone do much except speak out … he/she is the one. If Homeland, Heritage, whatever Rupert does, if grassroots Reform … vote for that one.

In parliament, it comes down to numbers, doesn’t it? If one of the Uniparty is govt, it’s the combined vote of little groups which carries the day. Or would you prefer a Starmer dictatorship?

They Really Don’t Like It Up ‘Em, Do They?

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in federally assisted programs or activities. The education department’s “Dear Colleagues” letter redefines the central targets of Title VI to centrally include supposed discrimination against whites.

There's nothing 'supposed' about it though. And the progressives won't give up that easily. 

US history shows that slavery was a central factor in US wealth. The US was built on Indigenous genocide and colonialism, as seizing Indigenous land was one of the reasons for seeking independence from England and is, in any case, foundational to the country’s formation. Structural racism also persists; for example, cities are segregated because of structural injustice in housing and mortgage law. The ways in which the US was built on racism, against Black Americans and Indigenous Americans, is central both to the study of its history and its present structure. If Americans do not have an understanding of this topic, they will not be well informed.

And by 'understanding' they don't mean what normal humans would know anout history, they aren't interested in simple 'understanding', indoctrination is the aim of their game. 

The “more extreme practices at a university” that “could create a hostile environment under Title VI” include “pressuring them to participate in protests or take certain positions on racially charged issues”.

But reason, rationality and morality are sources of “pressure”. How does one distinguish the pressure placed on people by moral arguments for racially charged issues from other kinds of pressure?

In other words, if you aren't protesting about nonsensical 'discrimination', you've no heart. They aren't trying to say that progressives are more intelligent than everyone else, they are trying to say they are simply more moral than anyonr else. 

As I have long warned, the media have been useful dupes for fascism. After years and years of vilifying academia, first by raising hysteria about “wokeness” and too little free speech (about eg race), and then by raising hysteria about too much free speech (about Israel), the mainstream media has smoothly paved the path for educational authoritarianism. No one should be surprised by its arrival.

You used the media when it suited you - now it's dancing to someone else's tune, you're raging. Maybe the issue isn't the media. Maybe it's you.  

They never sleep, never rest

One thing you could never accuse the devil of is being lazy … the minions never sleep, never rest, they’re in control of everything vital, not unlike a cancer, or an mRNA injury.

Over at our site, I’m looking at the publicly and taxpayer funded NPR, which is 87 from 87 demonrat registered … their job is as America’s thought police, a bit as Jack Dorsey was at Twitter. Over here … well they’re not even hiding the thought control … they control every field, including, as Caroline Ffiske writes at TDS, the provision of charts supporting their every policy position:

Next comes the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’, also within the Equality Act. This requires public authorities to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between those with different protected characteristics.

Over time, these pieces of law have come to be interpreted to mean that you cannot tell a bloke that he is a bloke – that is discrimination. Nor can you prevent him from using the women’s changing rooms – that is not fostering good relations.

If you test this, the edifice of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ from the College of Policing comes into play. Call a spade a spade and you might get a visit from the police, be told to ‘check your thinking’ and have a note placed on your police record. If you are a nurse working for the NHS and you describe a bloke as a bloke because he is requiring sex-specific treatment you may find yourself subject to disciplinary proceedings and your fitness to practice as a nurse publicly questioned.

This architecture has proved so successful at costing many people their jobs and livelihoods and maintaining gender ideology in place across our institutions that it seems surprising that the ‘gender lobby’ feels much need for anything else.

That is why the silly charts are perplexing. What are they for? I first pondered this when I came across this silly chart shared by the NHS.

Full marks, Uniparty and your controllers … we the people seem to have no chance whatever … just ask Bernie Spofforth or Allison Pearson.

” I'm struggling to understand what has caused this…”

Sometimes you read something that just, well....

A former animal shelter worker who attempted to sell human toes coughed up by the dog of a dead man has defended her outrageous behavior. Lilydale mum-of-five Joanna Kathlyn Kinman, 48, from Melbourne's north-east, was convicted and sentenced to an 18-month community corrections order - with a 150-hour work order - on Monday, after pleading guilty to one count of offensive conduct involving human remains.

She's a ghoul, and once upon a time, we didn't suffer these people to live among us, but hey, 'progress', I guess.  

Magistrate Andrew Sim told Ringwood Magistrates' Court he accepted Kinman had shown remorse for her 'entirely shocking' actions.

Then he's an idiot who really shouldn't be a magistrate, because she sang a very different song for others: 

But Daily Mail Australia can now reveal Kinman expressed little sympathy when she contacted a reporter in September after being exposed for the sickening crime. 'I don’t know who I can trust but there is a lot more behind the scenes regarding council rangers and their disregard for human remains and protocols - there is so much more to this story,' she wrote then.

Ah, the old 'Look, everyone does it!' excuse...not this time, lady. Even her lawyer struggled: 

Her lawyer, Rainer Martini, described his client's actions as 'reprehensible'. 'spontaneous' and 'insensitive'. But argued she had already suffered enough by the media reporting of her atrocious behaviour.

Those are consequences, not parts of the feeble punishment.  

What’s wrong with being fragmented anyway?

Think we should pause and consider these three postings:

What is “the right” anyway? Does it not mean today the dissidents unhappy with the country being sold down the river? There are two words which I find useful in understanding what “we” are … “unherdable cats” (first saw it at Orphans in 2012) and “ragtag”, as in Lord of the Rings … it suggests people from all walks, from former Conservatives (dries) to former Old Labour. UKIP used to have that.

A wise man I call MMutR* has said for decades now that we’re so disparate that we’re always going to fall out over this point or that … thus we keep it to two or three points in a manifesto and leave off with the others. For the moment.

Come election time … council through to GE, we look, within each constituency, at who embraces these key points within the candidates and then all of our thinking on these key points get behind this local, e.g. UKIP, Homeland, Heritage, whatever, and get that person elected.  The whole point is backsides on benches at Westminster or at council meetings.

We’re currently fixating on Party because that’s how the Red Blue Yellow Green and now Light Blue Uniparty stays in power … we have numbers out here but not inside Westminster … we can never make a Party, which requires massive funding, but we can certainly watch constituencies, see what talent there is and promote it … as long as we don’t try to “combine into one party under, say, a Farage”.

This is far more in line with what we have available (hint … it’s not money), plus realising that the enemy is seeking to shut down, incarcerate us with deathculters in prison, silence us in the open, e.g. at rallies. I’m suggesting that those things are impractical for most people either aged, with family, whatever … we’re easy targets for funded and organised thugs the Uniparty sends out there.

Silently, anonymously, seems the way the 80% or 52%, whatever, can do it … irregular tactics.  I’m suggesting, Laze and Gem, that we start thinking this through, then act consistently within what we agree.

……

* MMutR = my mate up the road

It's Not 'Seemingly Inaccurate', It's A Blatent Lie...

In a call for public assistance published this week, Surrey Police asked for help in locating Skyla Stone, a 49-year-old wanted for failing to appear in court.

'We are appealing for the public’s help in finding wanted woman Skyla Stone,' read the original appeal.

'She is described as a white, with brown hair and blue/green eyes and has links to Guildford.'

This is Skyla: 

Who's fooled? Certainly not anyone with eyes. 

Following an approach by MailOnline, the force acknowledged on Thursday afternoon that it should have referred to the suspect as a transgender woman, effectively confirming the initial feeling among campaigners.

The post copied in Lisa Townsend, the Surrey police and crime commissioner, who acknowledged the seemingly inaccurate nature of the language used in the appeal.

'Seemingly'?  

'My views on the importance of language when describing potential offenders is pretty well known,' wrote Townsend.

'I will be making it clear to the Force that however well-intentioned this may have been, it is clear to everyone that this is a male, however they choose to identify.'

It's par for the course for our irretrievably captured police farces. They have become a laughing stock. And there's a serious aspect to this surrender to the trans cult too.... 

The government-commissioned report said the conflation of biological sex and gender identity has significant implications for clinical care, health screening and safeguarding, including the possibility that crimes might be misrecorded.

'The problems are everywhere, from NHS records that do not record biological sex to police forces that record male sex offenders as women,' said Maya Forstater, chief executive of the human rights charity Sex Matters.

'These corrupted data standards have been set by bureaucrats insulated from the impact of their decisions, and competing for Stonewall awards.

'The government should swiftly implement the recommendations of the review.'

Does anyone think they will?