Marjorie Taylor Greene just wrote her best tweet ever.

After mistaking the Royal Pavilion for a mosque on their last visit, Ryan Bridge and friends have managed to make fools of themselves in Brighton yet again. This time they think that an art sculpture called “Under the Brighton Rainbow” at Palace Pier is about Gay Pride. In reality, it’s a BookBench painted as a seaside scene - deckchairs, the beach, Brighton landmarks under a big rainbow, as a colourful celebration of the city’s look. It’s placed by a Sussex charity supporting families with disabled children and nothing whatsoever to do with Gay Pride. Not the brightest, are they? 😂🌈

Of course not. He’s a career criminal disguised, somewhat thinly, as a political activist.

It's not about "the Muslims." It's not about "the invaders." These two are making more money doing this then they ever could doing a proper job. It's about - and ONLY about - the money.

The police have confirmed a passerby bumped into him and he spilt his own coffee on his leg. The hard right are the biggest bunch of snowflakes on the planet.

Having just made international news for attempting to lynch a visiting national sports team you'd think you pricks, if you genuinely had any sort of pride whatsoever in Portsmouth would take some time out and stfu for a while. You're an embarrassment. The shame of Pompey.

Could someone do an Aardman Animations version of this?

In 1985, Carl Sagan sat in front of the United States Senate and described the weather of 2026. Not as prediction. As physics. Sitting across from him was a junior senator named Al Gore — who would later win the Nobel Prize, the Oscar, and build a climate investment fund worth over $36 billion repeating almost word for word what Sagan said that afternoon. Sagan opened with Venus. 470°C surface temperature. 900°F. Hot enough to melt lead. "Not because it's closer to the sun," he told the senators. "Venus actually reflects more light than Earth. It should be cooler." The reason it wasn't: carbon dioxide. A runaway greenhouse effect that turned a planet nearly identical to Earth into a furnace. Then he looked at the committee and said: we're running the same experiment here. The senators nodded politely. Then they went back to approving fossil fuel subsidies. What Sagan told Congress in 1985: Global average temperature will rise several degrees by mid-to-late next century. Local climates will redistribute. Glaciers will melt. Sea levels will rise. And the problem cannot be solved by any single nation — not even if the US and Soviet Union agreed on everything — without China. China, he said, had the world's largest coal reserves and was about to industrialize. Every sentence was correct. He also said something that got almost no coverage at the time: "The initial stages of global temperature increase — one region might benefit while another suffers." That is the sentence that explains the last 20 years of geopolitics. Canada's growing season expanding while Pakistan floods. Russia opening Arctic shipping lanes while Bangladesh disappears. The politics of climate was never going to be clean because the physics wasn't distributed evenly. Sagan mapped all of it from first principles, in a Senate hearing room, 41 years ago. The part nobody quotes: He didn't say stop burning fossil fuels immediately. He said: "That has such severe economic consequences that no one will take it seriously." So he proposed something else — remove government subsidies from fossil fuels, accelerate solar, develop safe nuclear fission, and begin building international frameworks before the crisis made them impossible. That's not an environmentalist's speech. That's an economist's. Carl Sagan wrote 20 books. Cosmos was watched by 500 million people across 60 countries. He won the Pulitzer. The ideas in this testimony became the scientific foundation for a carbon market now valued at over $800 billion annually. He said one line at the end that nobody remembers. "We are all in this greenhouse together." In 1985, that was poetic. Now it's a weather report. The full testimony is free on YouTube. 17 minutes. Almost nobody outside of climate policy circles has watched it as a complete predictive model — laid out in plain language before any of it happened.

My words, in Parliament, on March 25th 2026. We announced these changes six months ago to protect British democracy from dark foreign money – before anybody knew about these latest donations. The law was clear, accessible and known to Reform in advance. Maybe Farage should attend Parliament and pay attention.

Less extraordinary.

It was written in the bill dopey.

The Donald coming through Castleknock. The enthusiasm for him is palpable 😂😂😂

Piers Morgan blocked me because I posted this. Feel free to quote Tweet it and get him to block you too.

RT @LouiseRawAuthor: Talking to locals in #Portsmouth and it turns out @RealDannyTommo is VERY unpopular in his own manor! Let’s explore…

Hey @RealDannyTommo and Hampshire Constabulary. This is just plain threatening behaviour and definitively criminal (Public Order Act 1986).

Possibly AI 😂

You have just proved how stupid you are, Benny, not that proof was needed, you utter cretin! The rot in Britain’s housing system didn’t start yesterday — it began with Margaret Thatcher’s so-called “Right to Buy” revolution, circa 1981 / 1982, long before you were born! History doesn’t just magically start when you pop out of your mum’s flange! What was sold as a liberty — the ordinary worker’s chance to “own their own home” — was, in reality, one of the most damaging economic con tricks in modern British history. Here’s what happened: Under Thatcher’s Right to Buy policy, millions of council tenants were offered the chance to purchase their homes from local authorities at massive discounts — sometimes as much as 50% to 70% below market value. It was a short-term political masterstroke: it turned renters into property owners and voters into Conservative loyalists. But the price for that “victory” was the destruction of the UK’s social housing base. The key betrayal wasn’t just the sale itself. It was what came next. Thatcher’s government made it illegal for councils to use the receipts from those sales to build new council homes. They were mandated to hand the money back to the Treasury instead of reinvesting it locally. In one stroke, Britain’s supply of affordable homes was gutted — and councils were left powerless to replace what had been sold off. So as swathes of public housing were sold at bargain-basement prices, the public stock vanished. And guess what? The buyers often flipped them for profit — or sold them on to private landlords. Many of those same council flats are now being rented out in the private market for three or four times the original social rent, paid for by taxpayers through housing benefit. This is Thatcherism distilled: transfer public assets into private hands, turn a profit, and create a permanent dependency on an overpriced market. Fast forward forty years, and the consequences are everywhere. The shortage of social housing forces families into the private rental sector, driving rents higher. The artificial scarcity pushes up house prices, inflating the mortgage market and locking millions out of ownership altogether. Meanwhile, the taxpayer foots the bill, subsidising landlords instead of funding public homes. “Right to Buy” wasn’t about freedom — it was about ideology. It wasn’t about empowerment — it was about dismantling the idea that housing should be a public good. Every broken housing market graph, every rent hike, every “generation rent” headline in the last two decades can be traced, at least in part, back to that Thatcherite decision to flog public homes and ban councils from replacing them. It’s no exaggeration to say: “Right to Buy” broke Britain’s housing system. And until that structural wound is healed — until councils can again build and own social housing at scale — the crisis will only deepen. The British public didn’t gain the “freedom to buy.” They lost the right to a home that’s affordable, stable, and secure.

Ryan Bridge and his dummies are out of court (case adjourned) and are bemoaning Brighton. They think The Royal Pavilion built for King George IV in the 1780's is a new church FFS. 'What is this they're building what is it?' Thick as mince.

❗️Are the Russians already preparing to leave Ukraine? Putin has unexpectedly called on Russian authorities to start preparing in advance for the return of large numbers of servicemen from the front once the so-called “special military operation” ends. According to Putin, “many people” will return, and Russia will have to find them jobs and reintegrate them into civilian life. For years, Russians were promised “Kyiv in three days,” endless victories, and the achievement of every supposed objective. Now the Kremlin is already discussing what to do with its soldiers when they come home. This is certainly not an announcement of a Russian withdrawal from Ukraine. But the shift in rhetoric is noteworthy.

"Britain’s only desalination plant remains idle during drought." Yep, built at a cost of £250 million to Thames Water customers and it doesn't work. newscientist.com/article/258…