Truth

My initial falling out with @jonronson was because he objected to me 'publicising' attacks by trans identified men on women in prison. Until that moment, I thought he'd be as angry as me, as angry as Ted Cruz is here, about an ongoing crime against humanity.

➡️If only he'd thrown a plastic bottle... Joshua Hindle, 30, who brutally attacked and strangled a woman in her home inflicting cuts, bruises and bite marks on her face, has walked free. The woman had asked Hindle to leave her property, he took her phone, smashed her phone against a wall and then attacked her. Defence said had a "good work ethic and was low risk of reoffending". In her victim impact statement, the woman said she can no longer trust anyone, feels vulnerable in her own home, and it no longer feels safe. Recorder Kenderik Horne handed Hindle a 16-month prison sentence suspended for two years, 25 "rehab days" & just a 10 year restraining order. 🇬🇧 There's no justice in the UK. Absolutely sickening.

A female civil servant going to the media to say that the special forces who served in Afghanistan aren't the hero's they think they are is the perfect illustration of how our entire society is being castrated by HR ladies.

Meanwhile the trial for the murder of Ann Widdecombe has been scheduled for June 2027. The courts can move quickly when they want to scare people. And slowly when they want the people to forget.

In the last 12 months: A migrant who sexually assaulted three women avoids jail. A migrant who raped a teen avoids jail. A migrant who assaulted a 12-year-old girl avoids jail. A man who threw a plastic bottle at a migrant protest and swore at police is jailed for two years.

This is not so silly as it sounds. During the heatwave, I filled 20 jam jars with hot summer air which will keep me toasty in winter. I could probably get a Net Zero grant.

🎙️🚨 THE MEDICALISATION OF WRONGTHINK — AND A SPEED AWARENESS COURSE FOR YOUR THOUGHTS! Animal rights campaigner Anneka Svenska had two police officers turn up at her door and tell her to accept a police record, attend an “online thinking” course or face arrest over comments she made on social media about the incineration of beagles at a company that breeds dogs for use in medical research. They threatened to arrest her under Section 179 of the Online Safety Act unless she accepted these conditions. Thankfully, Anneka refused to accept the “community resolution disposal”, which would have remained on her police record. After she engaged a lawyer, the case was dropped. This thinking course is deeply sinister. It is essentially a combination of a speed awareness course for your thoughts and a therapy session aimed at changing the way people think. It is the medicalisation of wrongthink. And it isn’t free: one police force charges £175 to attend. As FSU Director of Policy and Research @DavidRoseUK explains in the latest episode of the FSU Podcast, this is reminiscent of the Soviet Union, where dissidents were sent to psychiatric hospitals. Watch the latest episode of the FSU Podcast on our YouTube channel 👇

The historical mottos of regiments of the British army have included such profound gems as "Death before dishonour", "Where right and glory lead" and "Who dares wins". What might be the motto of the progressive elites in the unlikely event they put on a tin hat and went off to fight? "Proud to be a citizen of nowhere"? "All cultures are equal"? "Be kind"? "Silence is violence"? They'd all look so lovely inscribed on a cap badge!

What worries me is that eleven problematic Mitchell and Web sketches is actualy enough material to make a whole episode. I'm terrified that a rightwing terrorist might edit them together, and create one uber offensive episode which could kill any diverse person that watches it.

BREAKING: CWALAC just released a study finding that trans-identifying males have stolen over 2,293 gold medals from women and girls in the United States, updated from our July 2025 report, which found that there were 1,941 stolen gold medals. Our updated study also found that trans-identifying male athletes have stolen over $501,498 in prize money from women in professional sports. In California alone, over 611 women and girls have taken silver below a male that was allowed to compete in the women’s category. Trans-identifying males have competed in more than 14,301 female sport events, amateur and professional. Read more ⬇️ concernedwomen.org/concerned…

I’ve now learned that members of Tribunal Tweets have also not been sent links to remotely observe the Peggie v RCN, in contravention of a case management decision made by the judge in this case. I’ve written to the President of the Scottish Employment Tribunals to complain.

It's almost like we are living in some parallel world. The idea that millions of young working-class British lads are going to be rushing to enlist to fight in a manufactured war for a ruling class that has spent the past three decades stigmatising and demonising them is just wild. Have our political and military leaders lost their minds? Do they know the slightest thing about the mood inside the country?

I am being sued for defamation in the High Court by Paul Carruthers. The claim seeks damages of up to £65,000, together with an injunction and legal costs. The case arises from a livestream I made in July 2025 following a court judgment concerning the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic and the CQC. I was talking, angrily and robustly, about what I regard as the medical abuse of children. I have said for years that transitioning children is profound abuse. I believe children cannot meaningfully consent to interventions that may affect healthy bodies, sexual development, sexual function and fertility. I will continue to campaign about that. Carruthers now heads the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic. Gender Plus's own website says its hormone service is available from the age of 16, and describes Carruthers as Director of the clinic and leader of its endocrine pathway. Carruthers is publicly described as a gay man and elsewhere as transgender. I have not independently verified Carruthers’ biological sex. I am, of course, a sex-based campaigner who believes that sex is immutable. The central legal dispute is about meaning. One of the passages relied upon in the claim was: “If you want to know how paedophiles successfully managed to ingratiate themselves into positions of power, this is how. It's just unbelievable.” Carruthers says that those words were a personal allegation about Carruthers. I dispute that. I was not talking about Carruthers when I made that comment. I did not intend to say, or imply, that Paul Carruthers is a paedophile or has a sexual interest in children. The context of the livestream matters. I had been discussing the CQC, the Cass Review, regulatory loopholes and how institutions allow people to gain positions of influence. Immediately afterwards I returned to the court judgment. The claimant's solicitors themselves have proposed that the High Court determine the meaning of the words as a preliminary issue. When I was first challenged about the video, I ensured it was removed from public view and offered a public clarification and apology concerning the disputed implication, together with an undertaking not to repeat it. I did not want litigation. I tried to resolve the dispute. Proceedings were nevertheless issued, and I now have to defend myself. I do not have the resources to fund unlimited High Court litigation. I am therefore acting as a litigant in person, with the assistance of a McKenzie Friend, and I intend to obtain specialist defamation advice and barrister assistance at the stages where it is most important and where the funds allow. That still costs money. A complicated High Court case requires many hours of preparation: understanding procedure, responding properly to the Particulars of Claim, organising evidence, preparing documents and bundles, researching the law, corresponding with the other side and preparing for hearings. Specialist legal advice and advocacy will add substantially to that. I would never ask people to fund me to go looking for somebody to sue. I am the defendant. This fight was brought to me. If necessary, I will stand in the High Court and represent myself. I understand that litigation carries genuine risks and that I could lose. What I want is enough professional support and specialist advice to make sure I understand those risks and put forward the best defence I properly can. I am also going to be careful about what I publish while proceedings are live. This fundraiser is not an attempt to try the case on social media or encourage anyone to contact or target the claimant. The legal questions belong in court. But the wider principle matters enormously to me. People must be able to criticise medicine, regulators and powerful institutions, particularly where children are concerned. Free speech cannot become something only wealthy people can afford to defend. If the financial price of defending controversial speech becomes ruinous, you don't need to formally ban people from speaking. Fear will do the job instead. I am profoundly grateful to everyone who has already supported me. Every donation will help pay for the practical and specialist legal assistance I need to defend these proceedings. I didn't seek this case. But I intend to defend it. givesendgo.com/help-defend-m…

⚠️Footage Warning ⚠️ HORRIFIC LENIENCY⚠️ PLEASE READ A 14YO boy waited for a 14YO girl to go into a shop, followed her in, then stabbed her 10 times in the neck, hands and face with a 6 inch blade. He also stabbed the shopkeeper in the back. And yet he has WALKED FREE! He was handed just a 12-month referral order and just a 3-year restraining order! It is a miracle the girl survived. She has been left traumatised and terrified, and physically and psychologically scarred for life. Reports say the boy was "obsessed" with her and attacked her after she said no to a date. This is outrageous. This boy is significantly dangerous. This young girl deserves justice. Just yesterday Prime Minister Andy Burnham said women and girls should be able to live free from violence and abuse - that the "young generation" should be taught. What exactly does this sentence teach them?? This is unfathomable leniency for such a horrific premeditated and sustained attack. It is not remotely acceptable. I have filled out an Unduly Lenient Sentence request, PLEASE take 2 minutes to do the same Details and link below ⬇️ And please, please share. 🙏 Thank you.

If a Canadian doctor says "Would you rather have a Trans child or a dead child?", it is not a threat. They are just making you aware that they now offers both of these services.

43 of the 56 Commonwealth countries have joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and as a result 31 are now significantly in debt to China, not least those in the Caribbean and Jamaica especially. Now they are claiming compensation from Britain and will use a Chinese controlled international court to get the verdict they want in the expectation that they can then use UK taxpayers cash to pay off some of their debt.

Saudi Arabia's East-West oil pipeline has been damaged by drone attacks. The strait of Hormuz is restricted, Houthi bandits threaten shipping routes into the Red Sea. Another oil shock is coming. Yet our Prime Minister and his Cabinet are behaving like a flock of ostriches, heads buried so deep in the sand they could strike oil themselves. The answer is simple: DRILL OUR OWN OIL AND GAS IN THE NORTH SEA.

96% of Jews in Poland were murdered by the Nazis. That is genocide. 3% of Gaza’s population, mostly male combatants, died in the war they started. That is not genocide.

Every three years in medieval England, the king's men went from cottage to cottage cutting the toes off the peasants' dogs. It was called lawing. The dog's forefoot went on a block of wood, a chisel was set across three claws, and they came off with one blow of a mallet. The Charter of the Forest, 1217, records the correct method: three claws of the forefoot, but not the ball. A dog with three toes missing cannot run down a deer. That was the entire purpose. A third of England was royal forest, every animal in it belonged to the king, and a poor man's dog was the one piece of hunting equipment he could not be stopped from owning. So they left him the dog and took its feet. If the inspectors found yours intact, the fine was three shillings, about a month's wages. Before 1217 they simply took your ox. No law ever told that man he could not eat meat. The law took his bow, his dog's toes and his right to the wood, then left him entirely free to work out the rest for himself. He worked it out. He ate oats and beans, and he raised children who ate oats and beans. That is how it is always done. Meat is never banned for the poor. It just becomes, by one sensible regulation after another, impossible to get. Count the sensible regulations being drafted for your dinner this year.