The line "I'm never having that vaccine" sounds as good today as it did back in December 2020. File under: Things that age well. #COVID19 #unvaccinated #PfizerGate

Tonight, as I was leaving a restaurant on 14th Street in New York around 10 p.m., this Muslim woman took a prayer rug and a niqab out of the trunk of her car, put the niqab on, laid the prayer rug down, and started praying on the street. I grew up as a Muslim in the Islamic world, and let me tell you: this is absolutely part of an organized effort to flood the public square in the West with Islamic symbolism. First of all, there is no Islamic prayer at 10 p.m. Even if she missed the Isha prayer, which takes place earlier in the evening, she has until dawn to make it up. So why choose to pray on the street at 10 p.m.? Second, a Muslim woman who does not wear a niqab or hijab in her daily life would never normally have a niqab sitting in the trunk of her car. She is clearly not strict enough to wear it every day, so why would she suddenly be so strict about missing a prayer that she carries a niqab in her trunk specifically for this purpose? Third, in almost any Islamic country, you would never see a woman praying on the street at 10 p.m. This would be completely unacceptable. If she were genuinely worried about praying, she could simply wait until she got home, especially since a missed Isha prayer can be made up before dawn. I can tell you with full confidence that these scenes we keep seeing of Muslims praying in the streets of the West are intentional. They serve to assert dominance, normalize Islam in the public square, seize ground, and demand exceptional treatment that immediately turns into claimed rights. Bad-faith acts like this are signals of the same project that turned many cities in Europe into shitholes. Exceptional threats demand exceptional measures. Islam must be banned in the West because it is not a religion; it is a hostile political ideology. Until that happens, the West will continue losing ground to this ideology every single day.

The man entrusted with Britain's national security is married to a journalist who publicly questioned the testimony of Israeli rape victims, sneered at solidarity with Israel the day after October 7, and told James O'Brien he could "do better" than calling Hamas a "murderous death cult". You'd have expected Sarah Helm to keep her head down while questions swirl about her husband, Jonathan Powell. You'd have expected wrong. On Monday, she waded in to defend the Palestine poppy, days after the Telegraph revealed that its creator, an NHS doctor, had circulated an image comparing Israel to a cancer. Helm is entitled to her opinions, however grotesque. But when your husband is privy to the nation's deepest secrets, they cease to be a family matter. Powell owes the public answers. The Cabinet Office owes us an explanation of what safeguards exist. And he should step down. My latest column (link in first reply) 👇

Clocks go back soon. I’m setting mine back to when the Country had balls and women didn’t.

OLDHAM'S LABOUR LEADER AMANDA CHADDERTON BLOCKED THE COUNCIL'S DEMAND FOR AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THE RAPE OF THE TOWN'S CHILDREN. SHE REMOVED THE DEMAND TO INVESTIGATE WHAT HER OWN COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS KNEW. SHE SAID IT WAS TIME TO MOVE ON. HAD WE MOVED ON, THERE WOULD BE NO NATIONAL INQUIRY. When she lost her seat, she said: "It's a conspiracy theory. We had a report that said in black and white there was no cover-up." That report was Andy Burnham's. They thought Burnham's review had closed the scandal down. They thought those of us demanding accountability could be dismissed. We had other ideas. BURNHAM'S REVIEW WAS PART OF THE COVER-UP The review was asked for by Sean Fielding, the Labour leader of the council that stood accused. Andy Burnham, then Mayor of Greater Manchester and the region's Police and Crime Commissioner, commissioned it. Oldham Council and Greater Manchester Police, the two bodies under investigation, helped shape its terms. The police force Burnham was responsible for never gave his reviewers full access to its records, and the council redacted key information. The review found that the police had told the BBC there were just two pieces of intelligence on the shisha bars when their own officers had filed several, and called that proportionate. Burnham's expert team also failed to interview a single one of the survivors of the town's Pakistani Rape Gangs. To clear the former council leader of protecting the Pakistani men abusing Oldham's children, the review relied on his own 2014 blog. That council leader was Jim McMahon. His defence were his words on an obscure blog back in 2014 in a town where the majority of people did not read online blogs. Burnham's team knew what they were doing. They knew a council leader had a duty to stand in the council chamber and warn people what was happening. It was published on 20 June 2022 and declared there was no evidence of a cover-up. When one of its authors was asked about my allegations, he said there was no basis for them. A review that could not see the police evidence had been used to tell Oldham that the people exposing the abuse were the ones lying. LABOUR USED THE REVIEW AS A WEAPON Labour picked it up the day it was published. Jim McMahon, by then MP for Oldham West and Royton, Debbie Abrahams, MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, and Angela Rayner, the party's deputy leader, dismissed the allegations as conspiracy theories and declared that a line had been drawn under the scandal. On 30 June, ten days after a review that cleared him on the strength of his own blog, McMahon attacked me by name in Parliament. On 22 July Burnham wrote to the people of Oldham thanking his reviewers for the thorough way in which they had undertaken their work. He said nothing about the police records his own force had kept from them or why his expert team had failed to interview a single survivor. CHADDERTON BLOCKED OLDHAM COUNCIL FROM DEMANDING AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO ITS OWN CONDUCT On 13 July 2022, Amanda Chadderton, Labour leader of Oldham Council and councillor for Royton South, stood in the council chamber and moved an amendment removing the demand for an independent public inquiry into the rape gang scandal. She also deleted the words "including the actions and knowledge of Council Members and Officers" from the motion. In their place came her declaration: "We must move forward." Labour councillors backed her, and the amended motion passed by 32 votes to 20. Burnham's review had been public for 23 days. Oldham Labour had already used it to shut down any investigation of themselves. GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE ARRESTED ME SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION We took our campaign to the streets of Oldham to remove Chadderton from office at the May 2023 elections. We had crowdfunded leaflets and I led a small team of mostly pensioners. We were up against the Labour Party. Even Andy Burnham came to Oldham to campaign against us. On 27 April 2023, seven days before polling day, Greater Manchester Police dawn raided my home and arrested me. It was the force that answered to Andy Burnham as Police and Crime Commissioner. The allegations were false. The raid, and the attempt to fast-track proceedings and have me remanded, were designed to take me off the streets in the final week of the campaign. My legal team challenged what was happening, and the police were forced to acknowledge that I was the victim. By the next day they had released me and confirmed no further action. Undeterred, I went straight back to campaigning. WE REMOVED HER FROM OFFICE On 4 May 2023, Amanda Chadderton lost her seat in Royton South. Our independent candidate topped the poll. In a ward electing three councillors, the Labour leader of Oldham Council finished fourth and missed the last seat by 21 votes. She was the third consecutive Labour leader of Oldham Council we had helped remove, following Sean Fielding and Arooj Shah. Her answer to losing was to reach for Burnham's review and call the cover up of the gang rape of little White girls by Pakistani men a conspiracy theory. The review had been written to clear her council. She was still hiding behind it after we removed her. In 2024 Labour rewarded her with a job as campaigns manager for Yvette Cooper, then Shadow Home Secretary. Cooper became Home Secretary on 5 July 2024 with Chadderton still on her staff. She was also the Home Secretary who tried to block a national inquiry. The council leader who blocked Oldham's inquiry went to work for the minister trying to block the national one. After removing three council leaders in succession, in May 2024 Labour lost its majority on Oldham Council. We finally had the numbers to force the council to write to Jess Phillips demanding a statutory inquiry. Later that year the Labour government refused Oldham's request for a government-led inquiry. Elon Musk then got involved. On 12 February 2025 we outmanoeuvred the Labour Party and through an emergency council meeting, we forced Oldham Council to vote unanimously to demand a statutory public inquiry. Four months later, the government conceded the National Statutory Inquiry. None of this happened because those in power suddenly decided to do the right thing. Every one of those steps was forced on them by people in Oldham who refused to stop. WE PAID FOR IT The arrest seven days before the election was not the only attempt. I was already facing separate charges on earlier allegations. For three years, under house arrest, I waited for a trial on allegations I knew were false, while I carried on exposing what had been done to Oldham's children. Every night, I barricaded my front door whilst Labour Party aligned Pakistani gangsters and Islamists, under the protection of Andy Burnham's police force, openly boasted of what they were going to do to me. They tried to frame me, and they failed. They tried to scare me into submission, and they failed. They tried to silence me. My voice only grew louder. My one regret was that my mother died before I was able to clear my name. No electoral victory, no public vindication and no national inquiry can ever give that back to me. Warren Bates was there at the beginning. He was a former councillor who refused to accept what was happening in our town. It was his evidence bundle that helped force this. Warren died before he could see how far we had come. I held his hand at his death bed. His last words to me were 'get them, make sure you get them.' I made him a promise that I would carry on, that we would not abandon the fight or allow those responsible to bury what had happened. I have kept that promise. THE PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO CLOSE IT DOWN MUST ANSWER FOR IT The National Inquiry exists because ordinary working class people from a northern mill town people refused to be silenced, refused to surrender and refused to accept that the powerful could declare the matter closed. Some of the people who began this fight are no longer here to see it. I mourn them every day. The inquiry must examine Oldham in full. It must call Andy Burnham, who commissioned the review and defended it, and Amanda Chadderton, who used it to block an inquiry into her own council. It must call Jim McMahon and Debbie Abrahams, Angela Rayner too. The same with every Labour councillor that attempted to prevent the truth from coming out. They must explain under oath why they told the children of Oldham it was time to move on. My name is Raja Miah. I am 8 years in. I am not yet finished. Are you? _________ You know what we are up against. The mainstream media will not touch my work. Institutions I investigate do not volunteer their records. Politicians do not suddenly decide to hold themselves to account. And yet, despite all of that, we forced the national inquiry. We did that because enough ordinary people refused to go away. But getting the inquiry was never the end of this campaign. In many ways it was only the beginning. Now we have to watch where it goes, what it investigates, which places it avoids, which witnesses it calls, which records it obtains and whether the same institutions that failed these children are allowed to control the story again. Nobody else is going to do that work for us. And I cannot do it indefinitely working on my own. That is why I keep talking about 50,000 committed subscribers. It is not a vanity number. I did not pluck it out of the air. With fifty thousand people with me means when we uncover something important, it does not depend on a newspaper editor, a television producer or an algorithm deciding whether you are allowed to see it. It gives us reach they cannot easily shut down. But there is another reason. I need to build a proper backroom operation around this work. At the moment I am investigating, researching, writing, publishing, producing the videos, running the newsletter, dealing with the technology and then starting again. It is unsustainable. I need people behind me who can take care of the technical and production work so that I can spend my time doing the thing I do best. That is why we have been pushing so hard for new paid subscribers. 🔴 SIGN UP HERE 👉 redwallandtherabble.co.uk If you read my work and want it to continue, I need your help. Sign up for free. There are no paywalls to access any of my work. If you can afford the £3 a month or £30 for the year, please become a paid subscriber. We forced the inquiry. Now we need the numbers to make sure they cannot control what happens next. Unfortunately, we are reaching the end of the road where I can continue working this way. The paid subscriptions have stalled. Worse, tens of thousands of people are now reading these articles without even joining the free mailing list. The audience is growing, but the number of people actually standing behind the work is not growing with it. Over a million people engaged in my content this weekend. Only a small fraction followed up with a subscription to my newsletter This is becoming impossible to sustain. 🔴 SIGN UP HERE 👉 redwallandtherabble.co.uk Raja Miah MBE

Licence to take the piss fee. .@GBNEWS .@TalkTV .@MaajidNawaz .@PatrickChristys

The Palestinian flag is a terrorist flag

No one said it like Jackie Mason! "I was in Paris, and I know all those parasites." 🤣 "They are cowards by nature. They wouldn't fight for anybody and they wouldn't fight for themselves. "

How are lists on X like this acceptable? @michaelo @elonmusk @Support

Tiens, le rayon jambon du Franprix n’a pas été pillé.

.@EmmanuelMacron One year ago, you proudly recognized a State of Palestine. Now you got it.

Every single word! Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, a Spanish lawyer, writer, and Member of the European Parliament👇 “You did not listen to Israel — the vanguard of the West in the face of barbarism. You chose instead to condemn its right to self-defense, whitewash its terrorist enemies, deny the horrific crimes of October 7, and spread lies about genocide. Today, those who are destroying European cities are waving the Palestinian flag.”

The cycle of violence in France must stop. Israel is calling on BOTH sides to show restraint, and engage in negotiations for a two-state solution.

Free Paristine!!!!!

An Isis terrorist who participated in barbaric stonings, beheadings and mass executions is living in a hostel in Windsor. Astonishingly, he's being allowed to stay in Britain on human rights grounds. What could possibly go wrong? dailymail.com/news/article-1…

Very sad. You reap what you sow France.

What is even more disturbing than this post is the 21k likes.

🚨🚨 EVERYONE IN THE UK: We will cancel ALL streaming services if the Labour Government add the cost to streaming platforms. Repost - Share - Trending - MAKE IT TO BIG TO IGNORE @NetflixUK @DisneyPlus @AmazonUK @paramountco @Skydance

🚨Dep Leader of the Greens @MothinAli is a c**t🚨 Yesterday he was gloating after Bernie Spofforth @Artemisfornow and GB News' @Alexarmstrong apologised for accusing him of being one of the rioters in Harehills in Leeds. One notable absentee is me. You vile, little man tried to sue me too. I told you to f- off and have not paid, or will ever pay you a penny. I am gloating over you. Your bigotry & antisemitism knows no bounds. In the video you walk past a group of white lads & say without any evidence "we've got the racists." It's not your first offence. Stone cold defamation. On the day of the 7th October atrocities you X posted in relation to Israel 🇮🇱 "White supremist European settler colonialism must end." Only 31% of Jews are "European" 69% are Semitic, like Arabs. Antisemite. W⚓️stain you hounded Rabbi Zecharia Deutsch a Jewish ✡️ Chaplin to Leeds University. You called him a “creep, “absolute lowlife” & an "animal." After your vitriol Called up to join the IDF you said “because if he’s willing to kill people over there, how do you know he’s not going to kill your students over here?” @grok says "the intense wave of personal death threats and abuse that forced the family into hiding began shortly after Mothin Ali’s video." Rabbi Deutsch received, again according to @grok "Hundreds of threatening and abusive phone calls (reports cite over 300). Death threats, plus threats to rape his wife and kill their children. Antisemitic abuse and graffiti on the university’s Hillel House (Jewish student centre). Rabbi Deutsch returned to Israel. In the church of hypocrisy you are the Cathedral of deceit. What a vile man you are. You did it for money and to silence people, you don't silence me. You are the third to try, you are the third to fail. I suggest Ali, we never meet.

Britain's Man In Jerusalem Has A Problem At Home Jonathan Powell has spent this month trying to keep Britain's consulate in Jerusalem open. Israel closed it in retaliation after Ed Miliband banned imports from illegal West Bank settlements, and relations between the two countries now sit at their lowest point in decades. Powell, as national security adviser, has become Britain's chief interlocutor in trying to repair that relationship. His wife, meanwhile, has spent this week being investigated by the Metropolitan Police. Sarah Helm wrote on X that she stood with "authors who support Palestine and Palestine Action," a group proscribed as a terrorist organisation since 2025, after protesters allegedly caused £7 million of damage at RAF Brize Norton. More than 3,000 people have been arrested for expressing support for it. Her post has prompted a formal assessment by Scotland Yard. Helm's views on Israel did not begin this week. She has called Gaza a "strange surreal prison" where Palestinians were "imprisoned without charge." She has asked why occupied Palestinians lack the right to resist their occupier when Ukrainians are celebrated for resisting Russia. In 2024 she called for an international force to "drive out Israel's genocidal army" from Gaza. None of this is new information. All of it predates her husband's appointment as the man now representing Britain's interests in Jerusalem. That timeline matters more than her tweet does. Nobody needs to question Helm's right to hold these views, deeply held and publicly stated over years, to ask a separate question: whether anyone in government considered what it meant to place her husband at the centre of Britain's most delicate Israel negotiations in a generation, with his own household this openly aligned against Israel's position on the war. Diplomacy runs on perceived neutrality as much as substance. Israel does not need evidence that Helm's views shaped British policy to conclude that the man negotiating with them sits considerably closer to the other side of the argument than comfort allows. This is the same gap that has defined Powell's tenure from the start. He ran a secret backchannel to a proscribed terrorist group in Syria before his appointment, undisclosed until journalists found it. He held meetings with PLA-linked Chinese officials through his private charity, undisclosed until Parliament tried and failed to ask about them. His developed vetting status has never been confirmed, despite his predecessor's failed vetting triggering the defining scandal of this government. Each time, the pattern is identical. Something relevant to his judgement or his position existed, and nobody weighed it before he was trusted with the brief it touched. Campaign Against Antisemitism has called on Powell to denounce his wife's rhetoric publicly if he wishes to continue in post. That may be the wrong remedy for the wrong problem. Helm is entitled to her opinions regardless of who she married, and demanding a public renunciation from a spouse sets an uncomfortable precedent. The real failure sits with Downing Street, which appears to have handed its most sensitive Israel brief to a man whose household's views on the conflict were already a matter of public record, without pausing to ask whether that was wise. Powell remains in post. The consulate talks continue. Nobody in government has explained why a national security adviser whose wife has spent years comparing Israel's war conduct to an illegal occupation was considered the right person to represent Britain's interests in Jerusalem at the most sensitive moment in that relationship for a generation. The real question here has nothing to do with Sarah Helm. It is whether anyone in Downing Street does due diligence at all. "Campaign Against Antisemitism has called on Powell to denounce his wife's rhetoric publicly if he wishes to continue in post."

The BBC's New Poll Tax: Pay Up, Even If You Never Watch It Lisa Nandy is weighing a plan to extend the BBC licence fee to households that watch only streaming services. Reports suggest the charge could fall on viewers of Netflix, Amazon and Disney+, while the streaming giants themselves would pay nothing. The household could face a bill of £180 a year. The details remain unsettled. The licence fee was once a charge for receiving television broadcasts. Watch live television or open iPlayer and you owe it. The link between payment and product was thin. Under the proposal, a Netflix-only household could owe the BBC for a service it does not run. Those families include many younger viewers. Many have abandoned traditional television. The BBC had 23.3 million licences in force this year, down 539,000 in twelve months and almost two million in five years. Viewers are voting with their remotes. The government's proposed answer is to close the exit. The timing is remarkable. Last November, Tim Davie, the director-general, and Deborah Turness, chief executive of BBC News, resigned following the controversy over Panorama's edit of Donald Trump's speech. The footage gave the impression that Trump had urged supporters to storm the Capitol. Separately, Ofcom ruled that the documentary Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone materially misled viewers by failing to disclose that its child narrator's father held a position in the Hamas-run government. A corporation facing serious questions about editorial accuracy is now seeking a wider base of compulsory payers. Matt Brittin, the current director-general, wants BBC content on Netflix, YouTube, TikTok, Spotify and Instagram. News above all. He wants to reach audiences everywhere. The BBC would appear on every platform, and under the proposed funding model, the bill could follow viewers there. The television industry proposed something different. In 2025, campaigners led by director Peter Kosminsky called for a 5 per cent levy on the UK subscription revenues of streaming giants, with proceeds supporting British drama. A Commons committee backed it. Mr Kosminsky argued that the public should not bear the consequences of the American streamers' business model. A household levy leaves the companies untouched and sends the bill to the viewer. Enforcement raises its own problem. Watching live television without a licence is currently an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. Ministers have considered alternatives to criminal enforcement. A universal household levy could be collected through council tax or utility bills without monitoring viewing habits. But a charge linked specifically to streaming subscriptions raises different questions. Who establishes liability, what information must be shared, and what happens when households refuse to pay? Ministers owe the public answers. Then there is the question of local journalism. Reports suggest it could benefit from the additional funding. Local news has suffered, and the concern is fair. But who decides which titles qualify? If ministers decide, the press risks dependence on government. If the BBC decides, local publishers risk dependence on their largest publicly funded rival. Both demand scrutiny. A better answer exists. The BBC provides radio, news, education and other public services, and its defenders argue that these justify collective funding. That does not put compulsory payment beyond challenge. Let the BBC charge those who want its output, while making separate provision for clearly defined public services. Subscription built Netflix an audience of millions. A broadcaster confident in its product should be prepared to face the same test. Ms Nandy is expected to publish her White Paper before Christmas. She should remember how the last household levy ended. Extending compulsory payment to people who have chosen not to watch the BBC risks creating a poll tax for the streaming age. Ministers know how that story finished.