Accidental freedom fighter. Adult human female. English & British patriot. Far right, apparently. Have just the two cats 🏴 🇬🇧
Dystopia
Joined September 2018
- Tweets28K
- Following1.1K
- Followers580
- Likes158K
Hellina Handcart retweeted
Omg Bash gave his money to CHOOSE LOVE - “for queer refugees and displaced people” - and Romesh donated his to the Refugee Council. The Refugee Council received £41,588,000 from taxpayers between 2021-25 and Choose Love’s total income for 2025 was £12,593,084! They do not need the money. So many small, struggling charities could have done with the help and publicity! #celebritytraitors
Hellina Handcart retweeted
Are BBC Licence Fee Payers Funding the Government's Immigration Policy?
On Thursday 29 October, the Government opened applications for a refugee sponsorship scheme, allowing approved organisations to help bring refugees to Britain. The following evening, the BBC broadcast the final of The Celebrity Traitors. Two contestants emerged victorious, each winning £41,500 for their chosen charities. Sebastian Croft selected Choose Love. Romesh Ranganathan chose the Refugee Council. Both support refugees. One already has a formal role in a government-backed resettlement programme. The timing raises questions.
The first concerns the money. Who provided the £83,000 awarded to these charities? Was it drawn from the BBC's programme budget, funded by production company Studio Lambert, or supplied through another arrangement? If licence fee revenue contributed, viewers are entitled to know. The BBC has obligations to account for how its money is spent. Charitable donations may be worthwhile, but the source of the funds and the arrangements governing their distribution should be transparent.
The second question concerns the charities. The Refugee Council serves as a principal sponsor under the Government's Communities for Afghans programme, working with Action Foundation on resettlement. Choose Love provides humanitarian assistance to displaced people internationally. Neither has yet been confirmed as an accredited sponsor under the new scheme. Will either apply? Has either discussed participation with the Home Office? And were the BBC's producers aware of the Refugee Council's existing government role when the contestants' choices were approved?
Then there is the timing. The programme was filmed months before the Government opened applications, and the charity choices preceded the broadcast. Those facts matter. They make suggestions that the outcome was arranged to coincide with Thursday's announcement difficult to sustain. Nevertheless, the proximity warrants a question. Was there any communication between the BBC, Studio Lambert, the Home Office or the charities about the announcement or broadcast date? If there was none, all parties should have little difficulty saying so.
These questions arise amid wider concerns about the BBC's relationship with Whitehall. Recent disclosures revealed that serving civil servants, paid by government departments, had been seconded into BBC newsrooms, helping prepare coverage of migration, crime, elections and other contentious subjects. The BBC insists its journalists retained editorial control. Yet some officials' contributions appeared without their civil service positions being sufficiently clear. Public confidence depends on knowing where government involvement begins and ends.
The BBC also faces questions about compulsory funding. Ministers are considering extending the licence fee obligation to households using streaming services, including those who never watch BBC programmes. The corporation should therefore demonstrate that its editorial decisions and charitable arrangements remain independent of government policy. Viewers should be able to distinguish a contestant's personal charity choice from any institutional endorsement by the broadcaster.
There may be straightforward explanations for the prize funding, charity selections and timing. The evidence does not establish coordination or improper use of licence fee money. But transparency should be expected of a publicly funded broadcaster. Who paid the prize money? When were the charities chosen? What contact, if any, took place with government officials? And can the BBC show that licence fee payers are funding independent entertainment rather than, directly or indirectly, the promotion of government policy? Those are questions the BBC should answer.
"The first concerns the money. Who provided the £83,000. [...]. If licence fee revenue contributed, viewers are entitled to know."
Hellina Handcart retweeted
🚨 ISLAMIC BLASPHEMY LAW BY THE BACK DOOR 🚨
Kellie-Jay Keen (@ThePosieParker) has been charged with a criminal offence over posts criticising Islam, Muslim cultural practices and Islamism.
The Free Speech Union is proud to be defending her.
In a free society, no religion or cultural practice should be immune from criticism.
Since Labour came to power, the number of FSU cases involving people penalised for criticising Islam has doubled. It is now the single biggest category in our casework.
And now, with a state-approved definition of Islamophobia — rebranded as “anti-Muslim hostility” — things are only getting worse.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Communities Secretary Angela Rayner met Muslim community leaders in Downing Street. Burnham took a swipe at critics of Islam, saying “some of the language” opposition parties use “is unacceptable”, and told the leaders “we need to find ways with you to demonstrate that more and more”.
We now await Rayner’s appointment of an “Islamophobia tsar” who will help enforce the definition.
All five hand-picked members of the Working Group that drafted it have concerning links to Islamist organisations, as FSU Research and Policy Director @DavidRoseUK exposed in his report. We have little hope that the appointed tsar will be good news for free speech.
Meanwhile, the Government is refusing to say who submitted responses to the Working Group, so we cannot know which groups shaped the definition. Islamists may well have had a hand in its drafting.
Support the FSU’s campaign against an Islamic blasphemy law — and the people penalised under it 👇
Hellina Handcart retweeted
The year is 1873. Your wife tires easily and reads too much. The doctor prescribes the rest cure: six weeks flat in bed, no books, no visitors, fed on milk, forbidden to sit up without his permission. The man who devised it is the most famous nerve specialist in America, and the women come out of it quieter, which is taken as the cure.
The year is 1915. The hospital has a new way of delivering your child. Morphine, then scopolamine, and the mother wakes two days later with a baby she cannot remember having. They call it twilight sleep. The women are strapped into padded cots so they do not hurt themselves while they scream, and the straps are the modern part. The babies arrive blue and slow to breathe.
The year is 1945. The truck comes down your street fogging DDT, and the children run behind it in the white cloud because the man on the back says it is harmless. At the beach it is sprayed over the bathers on their towels. It goes on the cattle, over the barn, and across the kitchen table.
The year is 1948. Your son has trouble with his ears. The doctor slides a rod tipped with radium up each nostril and holds it there for the best part of ten minutes, and you bring him back three more times. Hundreds of thousands of American children get the same treatment. The cancers arrive in their fifties.
The year is 1962. The health visitor tells you breastfeeding is old-fashioned and the formula is scientific. By 1972 fewer than one American baby in four is breastfed at all. The formula is skimmed milk and sugar, with the milk fat taken out and vegetable oil put in.
The year is 1971. The family planning clinic fits a small plastic crab called the Dalkon Shield. Its tail is a bundle of fibres that wicks bacteria up into the womb. 2.8 million are fitted in America before it is withdrawn, and the company goes bankrupt under the claims. It had been sold as safe and superior.
The year is 1983. The doctor says your arteries are the butter's fault. The dripping tin goes in the bin, the yolks go to the dog, the margarine goes in the fridge, and you have the heart attack anyway, on skimmed milk, having done everything right.
The year is 2001. Your 15-year-old is low, and the doctor prescribes Paxil, because the trial in the journal says it is effective and well tolerated in adolescents. The raw data, reanalysed 14 years later, shows more suicidal thinking on the drug than on the sugar pill. The company pays $3 billion to settle. Nobody rings the house.
The year is 2009. The government has spent around £500 million stockpiling Tamiflu for the pandemic, on the strength of the manufacturer's trials. When the trials are finally prised loose five years later, the drug shortens flu by about half a day and nothing shows it keeps anyone out of hospital. The stockpile goes out of date in a warehouse.
The year is 2026. The doctor has ten minutes and a screen. The number is high, so the tablet is for life. The weight is high, so the injection is for life. The meat is bad for the planet and the oil is good for the heart, and the person in the chair is as certain as everyone who ever sat in it.
Every one of those was settled, by a committee, in a journal, with a doubter somewhere being laughed at. The rest cure, the straps, the fog, the rod, the formula, the crab, the margarine, the trial, the stockpile. All of it certain, all of it printed, all of it done to somebody who had asked for help.
You were never the one who was wrong. You were the one it was done to, and the only person in the story who did as they were told every single time.
The apology comes a generation late, in a footnote, addressed to nobody.
The next one is being drafted now.
Hellina Handcart retweeted
What sort of country gives loads of its people's money to other countries, then pleads poverty to its people and taxes them into oblivion?
This one 🇬🇧
Hellina Handcart retweeted
Andy Burnham has met Muslim community leaders in Downing Street and accused his political rivals of using “completely unacceptable language”.
The Prime Minister was accompanied by Angela Rayner, the Communities Secretary who began work on the Islamophobia definition, now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”.
Speaking to Muslim leaders around the Cabinet table, Mr Burnham said:
“We want to counter any form of hatred, discrimination, Islamophobia, wherever we find it, and work with you to bring forward an agenda that says that to the community.
“And I think perhaps the way the political debate is at times — Angela referenced some of the positions of opposition parties to us anyway — they are completely unacceptable.
“And some of the language that they use about the community is unacceptable.
“We just need to find ways with you to demonstrate that more and more.”
This is shameless: another example of Labour accusing those who legitimately criticise Islam, its history and its practices of racism. It is also another sign of Labour chasing voters who have deserted the party in recent years — and sacrificing free speech on the altar of electoral ambition.
Labour MPs have repeatedly branded opposition politicians who criticise Islam “Islamophobic”. Earlier this year, 26 Labour MPs reported Reform UK to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) over its comments about Islam.
Labour MPs also reported Conservative Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and branded him “Islamophobic”. He even faced calls to resign from then Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer after criticising a mass Muslim prayer event in Trafalgar Square.
This is madness.
Read more below 👇
Hellina Handcart retweeted
🚨 PICTURED: Mohmed Abdulkarim, one of the two suspects charged over the RAF Fairford plot
He allegedly loaded the three white vans with metal drums containing petrol, water butts and smart dashcams
Hellina Handcart retweeted
Today marks 100 days since Andy Burnham became Prime Minister.
Keir Starmer led the most hostile government towards free speech in modern British history. Andy Burnham’s first 100 days suggest he could be even worse.
Different Prime Minister. Same hostility towards our fundamental right to free speech.
Hellina Handcart retweeted
I think it is definitely time for group legal action against the Government for loss/damage caused by boat migrants.
The Government know.
Hellina Handcart retweeted
The liberal periodical @TheEconomist confirms the disproportionate amount foreign migrants commit sexual offences. They are govt @ONS figures.
Afghans 🇦🇫 7 times for example, as we have long expected.
Cc @migrationCtrl
Hellina Handcart retweeted
No big headline for this 👇
Labour fined £14,250. Reform fined £2,187. Guess which one the left-wing press shouted about?
In 2023 Labour was fined £14,250 by the Electoral Commission for failing to declare donations properly. 20 separate breaches. Big money, real reporting failures.
No big headlines on The London Economic. No pile-on.
This week Reform was fined £1,750 for missing small print on three social media pages and an advert. Paid it a month late so it went to £2,187.
That's it. Admin.
But that one is everywhere. Screenshots, outrage, "Reform in trouble."
Same regulator. Same type of mistake. One fine seven times bigger than the other.
Only one gets turned into a scandal - and it's the one for Farage.
Tell you everything you need to know about the left-wing press. 🤦
Hellina Handcart retweeted
So... This tweet doesn't have a community note. It appears to be true.
That's interesting, isn't it?
Because... shouldn't this person be arrested? Isn't calling for jihad a little bit worse than my tweet saying that trans activists smell, for which I was arrested at Heathrow Airport?
Sorry, shouldn't he actually be deported? Lest he radicalise the UK's prison population?
Why is this person in the country?
Hellina Handcart retweeted
Astounding Sunday Times investigation reveals new scandal in SNP’s Socialist Scotland:
800 NHS, central government, council and quango workers whose jobs no longer exist but remain on the public payroll because of the SNP’s ‘no public-sector redundancy’ policy.
Estimated cost of paying people to do nothing: £27m a year.
One NHS Highland worker has been receiving a full salary and benefits for 17 years despite not having a specific job.
The health board refused to say what the worker had been doing for almost two decades and how much they had been paid.
Likely cost to the taxpayer is expected to be far higher with several public bodies refusing to disclose salaries for hundreds of the workers awaiting redeployment.
Hellina Handcart retweeted
On the day the so-called national conversation was launched no minister was made available to converse with, until Streeting ambushed by journos. But Mr Burnham was on. Gogglebox. So there’s that.
Hellina Handcart retweeted
ANDREW NEIL: Labour has a cheek asking the people to be more resilient in the face of danger when it’s done nothing to improve national resilience (and neither did the Tories)
dailymail.com/debate/article…
Hellina Handcart retweeted
Laffer curve latest: big increases in the tax burden have reduced tax revenues as companies have been pushed into bankruptcy.
Business insolvencies rose 39% between 2019-20 and 2025-26 as higher taxes and soaring costs caused firms to collapse. HMRC lost £13bn as a consequence.
Nimesh Shah of accountants Blick Rothenberg said: “The UK tax burden is at its highest levels in modern peace time and changes to tax, labour laws and the minimum wage increase have added significant burden to businesses".
“The irony is that the Government increasing the tax burden has had the effect of increasing HMRC’s tax losses.”
Hellina Handcart retweeted
One may think that Labour wins all the prizes for expanding welfare dependency and thus its voter base, but the SNP is determined to take top place in this competition.
It wants to pay out benefits to people whether or not they apply for them. Its new welfare strategy also proposes to expand the use of taxpayer-funded “welfare rights advisers” to coach claimants through benefit applications and any appeals.
Social security is a "human right", says the SNP. What about the human rights of taxpayers who have money forcibly removed from them to hand out to an ever-expanding number of welfare recipients?
