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? 

This thing’s not unlike the Eloi and Morlocks

It does seem to me that there are some quite fundamental things missing from this account from a lady in a “quiet market town”:

At 5pm today in the middle of the local train station, my 14 year old brother was robbed by an Asian man with a goatee beard in his mid 20s. He was made to take off his jumper and his shoes and give him £25 out of his pocket and also took his earphones and his phone. Not one person helped him. This happened in broad daylight light infront of people and he had to walk an hour home upset with no way to get hold of people until he was back. I’m utterly ashamed of my community and really incredibly shocked at how you could be so cruel to not even make a call for him afterwards.

Where do we even start? Well, we could start with no father in the home worth his salt and a boy growing up a feminised victim of a matriarchal society. Back in the day, as they say, we also had female teachers, esp. in primary school, fairly conservative in nature … the radical marxist women were in secondary school.

Going further, the women supported, even pushed the men to be men and the boys to be men … boys were a bit like the Baker Street Irregulars … we knew where things were around town, our bikes our primary getaway device.

Today, we have the result of feminisation of both girls and boys … the girls are taught to blame white males for everything etc. etc. but the thing I notice most is that we’re not just in a marxist, matriarchal state where no one can do anything at all for fear of OTT punishment … but there’s a patriarchal streak through all of this … the Starmer streak, happy to order young men to head for a Ukrainian meatgrinder whilst leaving our women undefended against the hordes of illegal crims such as the one mentioned above. The patriarchal reaction is blunt force, violence.

These are not strong people in the least … they’re twisted. The whole thing is twisted and skewed … what boy, many decades ago, would not have had his fight or flight auto-reaction sorted … hell, we were fighting most of our leisure time, honing a certain bog standard toughness. This creep she refers to in the quote … whaaaa? Lightyears from what should have happened, starting with a kick to the attacker’s goolies and temples, if necessary, eyes.

Are boys not taught anything about survival by fathers these days? The notion of not even being aware, not avoiding trouble spots, having no peripheral vision, being some sort of weak Eloi … my whole nature militates against it. I’m talking about now by the way, at this age, not “back in the day”. What is it with boys today? What I see is boys with faces hidden or in drag or trying to be girls … quite vicious and whiny … but no manliness.

I really don’t mean gung-ho Bear Grills … I mean simply not being a quivering blancmange. As for feminazis, this is just one reaction below to the whole softbellied harpiness going on and I’m saying upfront that males are a whole mess in themselves today … but this video is but one woman, addressing women … just one part of the horror jigsaw:

After that, we start looking at the State and its policies, leftist judges in family law courts, the MSM, entertainment today where young females are portrayed in a Gal Gadot way, whilst in reality being mental messes … while males are portrayed as wimps, sleazes or bullies, often klutzes … which is becoming increasingly so imho.

That lady with that quote at the top is not out of order expecting some sort of protection for her boy or bro … she’s a woman, society which does not protect its girls is about to be overrun … Sammy Woodhouse, survivor of “Asian” rape gangs:

If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years as an activist, it’s that not many people actually care about victims and survivors of abuse. They care about politics. Everything is about politics. Victims and survivors are never at the forefront.

How did those monsters get away with it? Because Brit society was complicit, looked the other way or else joined in … plod, social workers, judiciary, the MSM would not touch it … and people’s reactions are learned over time.

But we have to go back further … if an underage girl is set upon in a park at 5 a.m. … what the hell was she even doing in a park at that time anyway?

Which comes straight back to parenting, no?

How Many Other Cases Are There?

Families of the Nottingham stabbing victims have accused NHS staff of ‘gross and inexcusable voyeurism’ for illegally accessing their medical records. Up to 91 healthcare workers looked up the A&E files of the three people killed in the attacks, heaping fresh trauma on relatives. It takes the number of public bodies where staff have been accused of illegally looking up details of the triple murder to six, after police officers, prison and court staff as well as council and mental health workers were also caught out.

And if you think there was something unique about this case, and they wouldn't have done it to any others, I've got a bridge to sell you...

The Nottingham Trust, which runs the Queen’s Medical Centre where the victims were taken, has apologised and said it was investigating ‘concerns’ staff may have ‘inappropriately’ looked at their A&E records.

And almost certainly not just those records, but other high profile cases too. But how come the computer systems allow this sort of access to every Tom Dick and Harry with a NHS logon? 

Mrs Webber said: ‘I dread to think what else is yet to be uncovered. All we can say with complete certainty is that each and every single person and agency and organisation that has so disgracefully failed our loved ones will be found out and fully held to account. We have to do better in this country.’

I wish you well, but I think you're fooling yourself if you really believe they will face a moment's censure for this... 

Post-Reform

There are certain home truths both ways on the Yusuf-Lowe mess … but first, two screenshots:

Well, you’d expect Great Yarmouth to show support for Rupert but it’s a double-edged sword. With the pro Rupert people resigning but with Yusuf Reform still intact and well funded, then there’s an electoral hole … Yusuf Reform runs a “centrist” LibDem type as Reform candidate, new party runs Rupert … Uniparty is in.

One thing Farage is good at is promotion for whomever he’s supporting, at “building membership”. With the greatest will in the world, neither Rupert nor Andrew have that acumen. Am I therefore for the mendacious dissembler Farage, who’s wrecked three parties so far … which may or may not have been his intention?

Not in the least but please look at realpolitik and what all players are after, each and every one.  The Tories are part of that.  The game is set up to return Uniparty red or blue, with maybe yellow north of the border. Farage has said that to be in power, they must carry the centre ground. In his eyes, that’s LibDem or Tory wet.  As M25 bubble, he’s perfectly happy with that … hence he lost the north of England at the old UKIP, after the Euro triumph.

But the elephant in the room, aside from climate bollox or the deathjab, or inheritance or winter fuel … is the boats, us being overrun, whilst mass deportations start in the US and many here approve.

The Reform political players and supporters say … look, we were on a roll, we need the centre ground, even if it means compromising with anti deporters.

Reform purists say no way … however it’s currently rigged in Westminster, to support people who support the grooming and rape gangs, to support taxpayer subsidised invaders, to send troops to the Ukraine whilst here, in cushy accommodation at taxpayer expense … that’s simply not morally on.

This last lot ask … is Reform about just gaining power … or is it about principle?  If the latter, who emerges as a leader?  I like Rupert a lot … but can he carry a nation to vote some new party of loose allies?

Hmmmm … I’m saying there’s no obvious solution to this.

Who Says They Have No Work Ethic?

A senior civil servant with security vetting was allegedly paid for three full-time jobs by different Government departments – at the same time. The mandarin who, it is understood, was able to work from home, is said to have duped his bosses to secure the taxpayer-funded roles. He then worked at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and at least one other department, on two occasions.

Three jobs? And no-one noticed? This will be another nail in the coffin for WFH won't it? 

This was despite him going through the Government's vetting procedures, designed to ensure rogue agents do not make it into Whitehall. An internal audit in 2022-23 discovered the worker had withheld his employment history when applying for the roles.

That's all it takes to evade vetting procedures?  

The civil servant no longer works for the Government and has been charged with one count of fraud. He has not indicated a plea.

Why only one? Why not two? 

The NFI report looked into remote working practices following the pandemic. It found there was 'even more opportunity for individuals to commit fraud by gaining employment with several local authorities at the same time but failing to fulfil all of the roles'.

Yup, the only reason this is making headlines is to have another pop at WFH, mark my words. 

The standard online reader needs to delve more thoroughly

There’s a very great problem for any citizen reader online that we are at different stages of “rabbitholing” … that is that one reader will be far more au fait with who’s who than another … and yet both report or pontificate online.

There’s no resolution to this as who becomes the arbiter in deciding “merit”? For example:

“Dramatic night as Saudi sources now claims Iranian intel ship Zagros (SIGINT) was sunk by U.S. forces at the same time the IDF conducts wide-ranging strikes in Gaza after Israel discovers Hamas was plotting another major Oct 7 style attack. Gaza ceasefire officially over, according to the Prime Minister’s office. Reuters is also reporting ballistic missile movement at IRGC bases in Iran. There were also reports from Yemen (video) that several senior IRGC members were eliminated in US attacks on Houthi targets.”

That report comes from Emily Schrader, whose X bio looks like this:

Look at ivolin:

Emily is on the exec council. Is that bad in itself? I’d argue no, in the same way a writer for RT is clearly pro-Russian, an Imam is clearly pro their religion, in the same way that Christine Easdale is clearly pro Britain and has called out Farage on his and Yusuf’s behaviour towards Rupert Lowe. Christine Anderson is clearly pro Germany.

In fact, I trust people more who are openly, upfront supporters of a particular side … I mean, one knows what is and what is not … what we can expect.

And from the language used, even mine in the “Emily paragraph” above, a mildly investigative mind can work out quickly the stance on various issues. But there’s also the question of good or poor intel. If Laura Loomer comes out with:

The Judge has a daughter named Katherine Boasberg, who works for a 501(c)(3) organization called Partners for Justice @PFJ_USA as a “capacity building associate". In her position, she helps coordinate and administer grant activities, ensuring compliance, and supporting the delivery of capacity-building programs to strengthen nonprofit infrastructure.

… how good is her intel? And also, that activist judge calling for terrorists to turn around, mid flight, and fly back to the US … whom does he work for, who pays him?  As for me, I’m neither Jewish nor deathcult but I do sympathise with the ordinary people of Iran, of the Ukraine, of Britain, the US, wherever … France. Israel. Rwanda. From a Brit-eye view, with much US coverage as well.

The point of this post?  Asking readers to please explore thoroughly before opining in print … esp. when govt stasi are combing through online posts, tweets etc., to see whom they can swat and waste taxpayer money on more profligatorily (latest invented word).

Not Quite, Arwa, Not Quite....

A more honest headline would have to admit that what it means is 'You Don't Matter Any More Than Anyone Else'....and that's the message that should always have been sent, isn't it?

Trump’s second term has become a crusade against DEI. Hours into his presidency, he signed two executive orders targeting “radical and wasteful” DEI programmes. If a federal initiative has anything remotely to do with the issue, Trump has decreed that it must be eliminated. References to the Enola Gay aircraft that dropped an atomic bomb on Japan, for example, were marked for deletion by the Department of Defense. Why? Because the aircraft’s name has the word “gay” in it.

Well, that's another example of relying on machines and not people, it hardly invalidates the movement. 

DEI may be a relatively new term, but the idea has roots in the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal for most employers with 25 or more staff (reduced to 15 or more by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972) to discriminate on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex and national origin.

And that once noble outlook has been twisted to allow discrimination against the majority.

While DEI has its roots in addressing injustices, there is a strong business case for it.

If that was true, businesses wouldn't have needed legislation to bring it in, would they? 

DEI should always have been treated as a serious business issue. Instead, it has often been approached as a box-ticking exercise or a PR manoeuvre.

Or a grift, as we can see from the next example you dredge up: 

“The amount of money I made starting May 2020 until about 2023 – I’ve never made so much money in my entire life,” says Akilah Cadet, a DEI practitioner and the author of White Supremacy Is All Around. Some of that money came from brands who genuinely seemed to care, she says, but others were just in it to look good. Now, however, the jobs have dried up. “I’ve laid off my staff. I have a much smaller team. I’m being punished as a result of people no longer wanting to care about people they should have been caring about in the first place,” Cadet says.

You cannot legislate to make people care about things they just don't, and aren't going to, care about.  

The Woke ruination of living

Consider, please:

Ditto with Woke ads, e.g. for M&S. Any clothing ads always have either black man, white woman or both … ditto with my bank … sometimes they use a happy black couple … Cheshire Oaks uses Chinese girls.

Quite simply, not enough boycott these things and even if we did, in large numbers, there are sufficient numbers of stoopid left liberals to allow such travesties to continue.

Reform is history in its current form

Going to post this, ladies and gentlemen, both here and as a lead across the way.

Chris Littlewood

Date and Time: Friday, March 14, 2025, 17:10 GMT

…… Dear Mr Yusuf, Integrity matters to us. Cliché it might be, but this letter has been deeply sad to write. We are the interim Branch Officers for Reform UK, Chester North and Neston / Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, and we are all resigning from our posts, in concert and with immediate effect. We can no longer represent Reform UK. We can no longer face our voters, your masters, Mr Yusuf, and sincerely defend your Party’s actions. This decision comes after careful thought and with resounding unity. …/2.

Over the past five months, we’ve grown local membership from 780 to 1,482, as it stands today. We joined this Party for its drive to change politics for good, to bring hope back to the nation, and to deliver common-sense policies. We poured our hearts into structures and plans to make a major impact in our constituencies, only to see that vision crumble. We are utterly devastated. Daily, we face members who trusted us for guidance, now as disgusted as we are by your actions, many emailing to cancel their memberships immediately. If you care why you’ve lost an entire set of Branch Officers, read on. …/3.

The recent debacle, entirely of your making, involving Rupert Lowe MP’s suspension on March 7, 2025, over unproven claims, followed by dementia smear rumours by March 9 (X, 20:54 GMT) and the utterly spurious, disgraceful weaponization of the legal system in reporting him to the police on March 6, a day after his Telegraph critique (March 5), for alleged threats from December 13, 2024, an 84-day delay that reeks of retaliation, was the catalyst for our joint resignation. Worse, Richard Tice confirmed on GB News (March 9) that Lowe would not regain the whip even if the claims were proven false, exposing this as a premeditated purge, not a pursuit of justice. Played out disgracefully over the weekend, this act of self-harm toward the party leaves your grassroots Associations to defend, explain, and justify. Such arrogance, dishonesty, and fragile autocracy is unbecoming of you, Mr Yusuf. …/4.

Patriotic members across the UK placed their faith in Reform UK to differ from other parties, to usher in a new era of governance and rescue their country from terminal decline. We relied on you to steer Reform on a steady, honest, professional path, to restore democracy and right Britain’s course. We thought you were a consummate professional with integrity at his core, heart in the right place, and up to the task. We were wrong. You and Nigel are not leading this Party where we believed it was headed. The dastardly treatment of colleagues acting in the nation’s interest and your inability to tolerate the diversity of thought vital to any thriving organisation reveal your severe shortcomings. It seems we’re just more of “that lot” you want nothing to do with (Tice, GB News, March 9). …/5.

There’s no difference between this Party and the rest, willing to compromise anything for power, power for power’s sake, not the good of the people. Knowing this, how can we canvass voters or ask supporters to donate £25 a year for membership with a clear conscience? We can no longer reconcile this Party’s actions with the honest hope we pledged to deliver, a burden our integrity cannot carry. Even more critically (still reading, Mr Yusuf?), you’ve left Branch Associations to fend for themselves, with no professional tools beyond limited member database access for chairs alone, which we couldn’t share with other officers, no centralised plan, no policy updates from HQ, no reliable way to relay members’ views upward, and no banking until recently. Worse, all chairs and officers across every branch remain interim, appointed by you, not elected by members, designed to ensure dissenters like us, or Stafford, disbanded this week (March 10-11) and replaced with compliant voices, can be swiftly purged at your whim. You’ve expected us to build your grassroots from scratch with zero support, a task we can no longer stomach when challenging your methods risks our own erasure. …/6.

Most damningly, Mr Yusuf, the summer 2024 creation of ‘Reform 2025,’ where you and Nigel hold controlling interests, locks in this autocracy, shattering any illusion of a democratic Party. Reform UK isn’t like other main UK parties, it’s your personal fiefdom. Members can’t force leadership or policy shifts through votes, a right denied us while we toil as unelected placeholders. You promised the Electoral Commission and lawyers were working on full democratisation “very soon.” That hasn’t happened as expected; Reform 2025 holds all the cards, doesn’t it? We in Chester North and Neston / Ellesmere Port and Bromborough can no longer defend your Party’s actions toward talented dissenters, your ad-hoc policymaking, your unprofessionalism, the utter lack of preparation for government in 2029 or sooner, and above all, the absence of democratic accountability. We wish well to members who can still trust you. We gave this our best, and we’re saddened to resign together today. …/7.

To conclude our duties in utmost good faith and professionalism: attached is a full financial report from Peter, our Treasurer; all petty cash has been paid into Peter’s account and transferred to the Reform Branch Bank Account through the donations facility; and the Reform credit card and paper-based information have been collected and centralised by myself, Chris Littlewood. You can arrange collection of these materials, or I can shred them using a 2mm cross-cut shredder for GDPR compliance and provide photographic evidence—please let me know your preference.

Our integrity matters to us.

Yours in sorrow, Chris Littlewood, Chair Bianca Leaver, Deputy Chair Jacky, Secretary Peter Leaver, Treasurer Saffron, Campaign Manager …/END.

……

Rather than comment, drawing swat plod to our doors in this seemingly lost nation … I’ll repeat this below from a Reform voter: