Pinned Tweet
A 30 min highlight clip of the most Jawdropping statements from doctors and scientists @SenRonJohnson RT discussion the most important 30mins you’ll spend if you want to get clued up rumble.com/vta828-highlight-…
Jules retweeted
It appears part of the government’s defence is this..
“Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.”
And there you have it.
Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
Jules retweeted
Here are the main subjects Russell Brand was investigating and speaking out about: 👊🏻
1. COVID-19 and pharmaceutical companies – Pfizer and Moderna's profits, vaccine contracts, government mandates, lockdowns, vaccine injuries and potential conflicts of interest.
2. The World Economic Forum (WEF) – Klaus Schwab, the Great Reset, global governance and concerns about unelected organisations influencing national policies.
3. Bill Gates and global influence – His foundation's involvement in public health, vaccination programmes, agriculture and relationships with international institutions.
4. Government censorship – Alleged pressure on social media companies to remove or suppress information, particularly during the pandemic.
5. Mainstream media manipulation – Corporate ownership, selective reporting, political bias and financial relationships between media organisations, governments and advertisers.
6. The military-industrial complex – Weapons manufacturers benefiting financially from conflicts, particularly the Russia–Ukraine war.
7. BlackRock and Vanguard – The enormous influence of major investment companies over corporations, financial markets and political decisions.
8. Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) – Concerns about financial surveillance, programmable money and the potential for governments to exercise greater control over people's spending.
9. Digital identification and surveillance – Digital IDs, facial recognition, data collection and the possible erosion of individual privacy.
10. The Epstein scandal and powerful elites – Questions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's connections with wealthy and influential individuals and the wider issue of accountability for powerful people.
11. Corporate influence over democracy – Political donations, lobbying, revolving-door appointments and the influence of multinational corporations on government decisions.
12. The Great Reset and globalisation – Claims that international crises were being used to accelerate economic and political changes without sufficient democratic scrutiny.
13. Food and agriculture – Corporate concentration in food production, agricultural policies and the influence of wealthy investors.
14. Freedom of speech – Whether governments and technology companies should determine which opinions and information people are allowed to discuss.
Jules retweeted
The @UKLabour honours our veterans by giving free hotel accommodation and WiFi to anyone except our actual veterans.
Jules retweeted
Please share…..
Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
Jules retweeted
This is why I switched to @RestoreBritain as you can't expect change with the same corruption and harms in place from
Covid
BUCKLE UP!!!! Heads are about to roll, and Zahawi will be the first politician to answer for his crimes against humanity and genocide.
Let’s not forget that Nadhim Zahawi served as the UK’s first Minister for the biological weapon roll out. He was appointed by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he was responsible for leading the implementation of the country's mass vaccination (Biological Weapon) campaign. He and many others are responsible for the deaths of thousands.
JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IS COMING.
Jules retweeted
The Branding of a Dissident: The UK's Corrupt Judiciary Just Sentenced Truth to 10 Years in Hell
The United Kingdom has just witnessed the ultimate display of selective justice, a spectacle so transparently corrupt it should make every single person with a shred of decency sick to their stomach.
Russell Brand has been handed a sentence of 10 years and 6 months by Judge Joel Bennathan at Southwark Crown Court.
This is not justice. This is a political hit job wrapped in the robes of the law, designed to destroy a man who dared to challenge the very establishment that now sits in judgment of him.
Look at the numbers. Look at the sheer audacity of this so-called "justice system." Brand was convicted of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault, alleged to have occurred between 2004 and 2009.
For this, he receives a decade behind bars. Yet, where is this same iron fist when it comes to actual, proven violent criminals who happen to align with the narratives the elite despise? The hypocrisy is staggering. We see individuals convicted of genuine, violent rape cases receiving suspended sentences or walking free with time served because they fit the profile of the "victim" or the "perpetrator" that the media complex prefers. But Brand? A man who has openly discussed his past addictions and who has become a vocal critic of the pharmaceutical industry, the media, and the government's control mechanisms? He gets the book thrown at him with a speed and severity that is frankly terrifying.
The judge, Joel Bennathan, had the gall to lecture Brand about "fame" and "arrogance".
Let's be clear about what this really is. This is the establishment punishing dissent. Brand's "crime" in the eyes of the state was not what happened in a private room twenty years ago, which he has consistently denied, claiming all encounters were consensual.
His real crime was becoming too influential, too questioning, and too dangerous to the narrative. The fact that a jury convicted him after a four-week trial where he was found not guilty of two counts of rape and one count of attempted indecent assault shows the fragility of the case against him.
Even with the deck stacked, with the media circus demanding blood, they could only get a conviction on a fraction of the charges. And yet, the sentence is 10.5 years.
Compare this to the absolute travesty we see in other cases. We have seen individuals convicted of violent crimes, crimes with DNA evidence and immediate reporting, receive sentences that are a fraction of this for far more egregious acts. The disparity is not an accident. It is a feature of a system that has been infiltrated by ideological zealots who view the law as a weapon to be used against their enemies. The left and their allies in the judiciary and the media have created a culture where an accusation is a conviction, and where the accused is guilty until proven innocent, a complete inversion of the very principles this country was built upon.
The fact that Brand will serve two-thirds of this sentence before any possibility of release is a testament to the severity with which the state is treating this.
They are making an example of him. They are sending a message to anyone else who might think about stepping out of line, about questioning the official narrative, about challenging the power structures that govern our lives. This is about silencing a voice that has become too loud, too popular, and too effective at exposing the rot at the heart of our institutions.
This entire process, from the initial accusations that were eagerly amplified by every major media outlet without question, to the swift and severe sentencing, has been a masterful manipulation of the public. They want you to believe this is about justice for women. It is not. It is about justice for the state. It is about crushing a man who has become a symbol of resistance. The left's obsession with canceling, de-platforming, and now imprisoning those who disagree with them has reached its logical conclusion. They have no arguments left. They have no moral high ground. All they have is the power of the state, and they are using it with a ruthlessness that should terrify every single one of us.
The UK justice system has today proven itself to be nothing more than a tool of political repression. It is corrupt, it is biased, and it is fundamentally broken. Russell Brand is a political prisoner, and his imprisonment is a stain on the soul of this nation that will not be easily washed away.
We must stand with him, not because he is perfect, but because if they can do this to him, they can do it to anyone. And they will.
But this offender did not have 6.6million followers on YouTube and was not asking questions the government do not want asked !
Regardless of personal opinions about Russell Brand, on the exact same day he received a prison sentence of ten years and six months, an Afghan national appeared in court for three counts of rape and penetration of a child under 13, but received a two-year suspended sentence.
🤬😡🤬😡🤬😡
1
11
Jules retweeted
Have you seen this on the news in the uk? Of course you haven’t. Why is this not THE biggest news item. Why is the agenda still being pushed?
Jules retweeted
What a disgusting show trial! If he had raped minors on Epstein Island, he’d still be a free man.
Jules retweeted
The timing of everything surrounding Russell Brand raises some very serious questions.
A man who has become increasingly vocal against the establishment, the political class and the woke left suddenly finds himself at the centre of a criminal case and convicted.
There was no DNA evidence and no CCTV footage. The case relied heavily on witness testimony. That does not automatically make a conviction wrong, but it certainly doesn’t mean that questions about the evidence and the circumstances should be off limits.
I also find it important to distinguish between what was actually alleged and what people are now suggesting happened.
We should be able to question the evidence, examine inconsistencies and scrutinise testimony without being accused of supporting sexual abuse.
Nobody should be above the law. But equally, nobody should be beyond scrutiny.
My concern is that we are increasingly living in a society where challenging the establishment comes at a price.
And I believe we should be able to have that conversation without fear of being shouted down.
Jules retweeted
I told you.
I warned you all.
🚨🚨 IMPACTANTE: Codificadora médica de hospital que en esta entrevista solo se hace llamar "Zoe", describe los HORRORES que presenció tras la distribución de las "vacunas" COVID-19...
🚨🚨 "No sabía que fuera posible que un ser humano muriera de forma tan horrible y rápida, antes de que implementaran las inyecciones de ARNm... Durante días, los pacientes sufrían convulsiones y ningún medicamento las detenía, y finalmente... tuvieron que ser sometidos a una operación down."
"Entre las enfermedades impensables y mortales se encontraban encefalitis, gangrena espinal, coágulos de sangre, accidentes cerebrovasculares y fallo multiorgánico"...
"No sabía que fuera posible que un ser humano muriera de forma tan horrible y rápida antes de que implementaran las inyecciones de ARNm... Era una locura, nunca había visto algo así. En los casos más graves, lo llamaban sepsis, pero era como una insuficiencia multiorgánica instantánea. En cuestión de horas, los pacientes morían de insuficiencia hepática, pulmonar y renal [al mismo tiempo] ..." cuenta Zoe a CHD. Añade: «Algunos registros del equipo de emergencia que los encontró [a las víctimas de la inyección] muestran que su cuerpo intentaba rechazarlo todo y, en algunos casos, su familia llegaba 30 minutos antes, y en menos de una hora ya estaban muertos"...
"Zoe señala que "llegaban pacientes con convulsiones como nunca antes había visto" y que el personal del hospital "no podía controlar a algunos". El codificador añade: "Durante días, los pacientes sufrían convulsiones sin que ningún medicamento pudiera detenerlas, y finalmente... tuvieron que ser internados down."...
"Lo llamaron encefalitis o encefalopatía, y luego, incluso la organización que codifica la enfermedad... [lo llamó] encefalitis asociada a COVID-19", dice Zoe.
"Los coágulos eran una locura", señala el codificador. "Nunca había visto coágulos así; incluso los radiólogos intervencionistas que acudían con endoscopios para realizar intervenciones cardíacas e implantar stents [un stent es un tubo generalmente hecho de una aleación metálica o un polímero] en la arteria carótida (si se sufre un derrame cerebral que llega al cerebro), normalmente es raro que se introduzca más de un stent, y documentaban múltiples ubicaciones a la vez. Habían tenido casos de infarto similares en los que se necesitaban cantidades masivas de stents que nunca antes habían necesitado".
Zoe continúa diciendo: "Había personas que practicaban senderismo a los 20 años y que estaban completamente sanas, que habían corrido maratones, y que de repente tuvieron que amputarles una pierna porque tenían un coágulo de sangre enorme que les iba desde la cadera hasta la pierna, y no se podía salvar".
"Hubo algunos casos de gangrena espinal de la noche a la mañana, algo que nunca había visto", añade el programador. "Y, ya sabes, no se puede amputar la columna cuando se gangrena. Normalmente, extirpan el tejido que se está muriendo así para prevenir más infecciones, y no sabían qué hacer do. Lo único que pudieron hacer fue... básicamente, reemplazar esa parte de la columna con un implante; eso fue lo mejor que pudieron do... Fue realmente intenso".
En cuanto a las respuestas de los médicos ante estos horrores, Zoe dice: «Estaban desconcertados, no conectaban los puntos». Sin embargo, añade: «Al saber cuáles podrían ser los síntomas de una lesión por vacuna, teníamos al 100 % todo lo que acabo de describir». A pesar de saberlo, «los médicos nunca les decían eso a los pacientes. Simplemente decían: 'Es un derrame cerebral. Es un infarto. Es un coágulo de sangre'. Y luego nunca relacionaban las dos cosas».
Jules retweeted
For this who just found my page I was diagnosed with head and neck cancer in May. When they took the CT and suspected it was cancer I refused an initial biopsy until I could begin the Makis Protocol and saturate my blood with medicines and supplements so that it could not spread easily once the biopsy or surgery was conducted.
They removed the tumor, did the pathology and confirmed metastatic head and neck cancer.
One doctor wanted to remove part of my tongue at the base as 30-50 lymph nodes/
One said radiation was the path and I would have to accept that the rest of my life would be spent managing the symptoms of the radiation damage and come to terms with it.
The chemo doc I wouldn’t even talk to because they were rude when I called, demeaning and demanding but they kept trying to get me to schedule a chemo appointment.
Instead I pulled every every study I could on my type of cancer, read how it was treated and travels through the body, then I ran it through AI to crunch the data about non traditional treatments and made a plan.
I took the Makis Protocol with a number of supplements, certain mushroom extracts, fasting, cutting sugar out of my diet, exercise, sauna, dandelion root, rebuilding my gut biome, methylene blue and more.
Then I went to Mt Athos Greece to seek the intercessions of the Theotokos, pray, weep, meditate on my potential death, and seek out very specific wonder working icons to lay my face on.
The cancer docs were blowing up my phone because I refused a PET scan right after my surgery (which was the right choice if you know about PET scans and why) and I told them until I sought Christ on Athos I was suspending anymore doc visits or talk of treatments.
I should be in my 5th week of radiation starting to feel the heavy effects, unable to swallow, permanently altering my DNA by its brutality potentially guaranteeing future cancers just from that.
Instead, yesterday I got my results back from my new PET scan. No evidence of malignancy anywhere. Can you imagine if I would have done the radiation?
Lord have mercy. Now I want to show people how I did it.
Stay tuned. Most Holy Theotokos Save Us, glory to God in all things.
Jules retweeted
Bravo to Senator Ron Johnson
The conspiracy theorists were right
A new FDA data mining report shows they knew the Covid vaccine had 25 major side effects and they all conspired to hide it from the public
Senator Ron Johnson’s Senate PSI Majority Staff Interim Report has been released on FDA data mining and the March 2021 analysis by Dr. Ana Szarfman
There was a “masking” in the standard FDA system, where signals from Pfizer and Moderna reportedly cancelled each other out
Meaning they lied and hid the side effects from the public and told you it was 100% safe and effective
I have compared the whole list for you:
Neurological & Dysautonomia
• Bell’s palsy (Suppressed Signal)
• Paraesthesia ear (Suppressed Signal)
• Bradykinesia (Suppressed Signal)
• Basal ganglia stroke (Suppressed Signal)
• Cerebral artery occlusion (Suppressed Signal)
• Thalamic infarction
• Sinus rhythm abnormality
• Agonal rhythm
• Diaphragmatic spasm
• Dementia (Pfizer)
Cardiac
• Sudden cardiac death (Suppressed Signal)
• Acute left ventricular failure (Suppressed Signal)
• Diastolic dysfunction (Suppressed Signal)
• Ejection fraction abnormal (Suppressed Signal)
• Hypertensive emergency (Suppressed Signal)
• Blood pressure systolic changes (Suppressed Signal)
• Aortic stenosis (Suppressed Signal)
• Cardiac failure chronic
• Acute myocardial infarction (Pfizer, Moderna)
• Cardiac telemetry abnormal (Pfizer) (Suppressed Signal)
Vascular & Pulmonary
• Pulmonary infarction (Suppressed Signal)
• Embolic stroke
• Ischaemic stroke
• Aortic aneurysm rupture
• May-Thurner syndrome
• Hypomagnesaemia (Suppressed Signal)
Other
• Cholecystitis acute (Suppressed Signal)
• AST/ALT ratio abnormal
• Mastoid disorder
• Cardiac assistance device user
• Brain natriuretic peptide increased
• Asymptomatic COVID-19 (Pfizer) (Suppressed Signal)
The FDA’s standard analytical method allegedly masked “obscured” statistical safety signals in the data
Aka they lied
Jules retweeted
BBC posted this Headline ‘Far Right Shooting’ it received if 1 million impressions
However in the comments - you can see the Shooter was a Far Left Radical in favour of Communism
The BBC are pure propaganda & misinformation
Jules retweeted
Go look at Russel Brands YouTube channel - his last posted video was from two weeks ago and the entire feed is talking about digital ID, the mark of the beast, government overreach, how Covid was a scam etc - and he has 6.6M subscribers…
Clearly he had become too loud and too much of a problem for the powers that be
Jules retweeted
Danny Tommo is locked up until June 2027 for damaging property that had no owner.
Tommy Robinson faces sentencing next month for doing journalism.
Lucy Connolly was jailed for more than two years for words on social media.
Now compare:
Ricky Jones said on live camera that right-wingers needed their throats cut : no prison.
Labour MP Mike Amesbury beat a constituent he was elected to represent : no prison.
Huw Edwards possessed explicit images of children : no prison.
Mohammad Amaaz beat police officers at Manchester Airport : years of delays before conviction.
Same country, different rules.
