For some, old age is a desert: for others, it is a harvest. I welcome a season of reaping and plucking.
Liverpool, England
Joined September 2017
- Tweets1.9K
- Following4
- Followers1
- Likes320
David retweeted
Visitor: "Where's the fruit? Gorillas eat fruit."
Keeper: "Not here. We took it off the menu in 2014. Most big zoos have since."
Visitor: "Why would you take fruit off a gorilla?"
Keeper: "Because it isn't fruit any more. Everything in a supermarket's been bred for a century to be sweeter. A wild fig's about as sweet as a carrot. A supermarket banana's a pudding."
Visitor: "And the gorillas?"
Keeper: "Got fat. Teeth went. Two of the males were pre-diabetic. The vet said feeding them modern fruit was like feeding them chocolate bars with the wrapper left on."
Visitor: "What do they get now?"
Keeper: "Leaves, stems, a bit of veg. They sulked for a fortnight and lost the weight."
Visitor: "So the fruit was too sugary for a 180-kilo animal built to eat it."
Keeper: "That's the paperwork, yes."
Visitor: "I've got a bag of grapes in the buggy for my two-year-old."
Keeper: "Lovely. We'd not be allowed to give those to the chimps."
David retweeted
If she reports immediately, she's accused of trying to ruin a famous man's career.
If she waits, she's accused of inventing it years later.
If she tells nobody, she's accused of having no corroboration.
If she tells friends, she's accused of spreading rumours.
If she continues working in the same industry, she's accused of not being sufficiently traumatised.
If she leaves the industry, she's accused of being bitter about her failed career.
If she liked the man, she's accused of regretting consensual sex.
And if she disliked him, she's accused of having a grudge.
You CANNOT win.
David retweeted
Tristan Tate - prison
Andrew Tate - prison
Russell Brand - prison
Tommy Robinson - soon be in prison
Danny tommo - prison
Lozza Fox - potentially prison maybe a signitory of the sex offenders register if convicted
Diddy - prison
Stephen Bear - prison
Ross Davidson - prison
David retweeted
This is extraordinary.
I don't think I have heard a more articulate & accurate deconstruction & demolition of Nigel Farage's Reform UK policy than this, in under 85 seconds!
Trumps MAGA, AfD supporters in East Germany and "Ireland is full" gobshites need to hear this too.👇
David retweeted
This is well worth a watch.
Jaymey McIvor gets destroyed by every #newsnight guest as he tries to sell Reform’s ‘independent inquiry’ as a victory.
David retweeted
A black man "I'm an Englishman"
Braverman "well...actually...no you're not"
An MP sitting in an English parliament involved in making laws to protect us all tells every black and brown person BORN here that they aren't actually English- because she set the bar at five generations and set it at white.
How is that patriotism?
Car Crash.
David retweeted
American military police tried to impose a colour bar on an English village in 1943.
The village's three pubs responded by putting up signs reading: BLACK TROOPS ONLY. Bamber Bridge, Lancashire.
Black American soldiers were stationed there and the locals liked them. When the US Army asked the village to segregate its pubs, the publicans complied in the most English way available — by barring the white Americans instead.
On the night of 24 June 1943, white American MPs came to arrest a Black soldier at Ye Olde Hob Inn for a uniform infraction. British civilians and British soldiers in the pub intervened and told them to leave him alone.
It escalated into a night of shooting between Black GIs and American MPs. One Black soldier, William Crossland, was killed.
Dozens were court-martialed. British witnesses testified about the MPs' conduct, and sentences were reduced. The US Army quietly reorganised how MPs were deployed in the area.
An English village looked at American segregation, understood it immediately, and refused to host it.
The pub is still there. The sign is part of local legend.
David retweeted
What a great resource I’ve just been sent. Thank you @Dublinate
You just type in your surname and you can see where it’s historically and recently found in GB, associated first names, ethnic origin, characteristics of the areas etc.
apps.geods.ac.uk/gbnames/
David retweeted
Thank you, Prime Minister @andyburnham, for the warm welcome to Liverpool.
Canada and the United Kingdom are the closest of friends — with shared history and ambition. Right now, we have an enormous opportunity to build together with the right values — in AI, defence, trade, and beyond.
We’re going to seize it.
ALT Prime Minister Carney meets with Prime Minister Burnham of the United Kingdom in Liverpool, UK.
David retweeted
Higgy, I think a five-year-old could understand that this is not actually what is being said.
First, the boats do not somehow become “in distress” by magic the instant they reach the British side. French rescue authorities themselves monitor these craft precisely because they may be dangerous, and they repeatedly offer assistance when circumstances warrant it. Their published reports record boats suffering engine failures, occupants being offered rescue, some accepting and others refusing, with French vessels continuing to monitor them because forcing a transfer from an overloaded inflatable can itself cause a capsize.
Secondly, there is no routine French-to-RNLI “handover”.
The RNLI attended only 109 Channel small-boat incidents in the whole of 2025, out of 9,058 RNLI launches. It rescued 2,353 of the 41,472 people recorded crossing, just 5.7%. In other words, 94.3% were dealt with by other agencies such as Border Force.
That is rather important if the claim is that the French escort boats to a line where the RNLI routinely collects them.
They plainly do not.
Thirdly, when the RNLI is involved, it does not independently decide to go out looking for migrant boats. It is one of several declared search-and-rescue assets and is tasked and coordinated by @HMCoastguard when Coastguard assesses that an RNLI lifeboat is required.
And there is another distinction that keeps getting lost.
Border Force interception is not automatically the same thing as rescue.
If Border Force intercepts an overcrowded RIB because it has entered UK waters, wants to prevent an uncontrolled beach landing, secure everybody aboard and take them to one location for identification and processing, that is also border control. The fact that the vessel is dangerous does not mean every person aboard was moments from drowning.
Sometimes an interception will also be a rescue.
Sometimes it will principally be a border-security operation.
Sometimes it will be both.
So the picture is not:
France decides they are perfectly safe → escorts them to an invisible line → RNLI suddenly declares an emergency → RNLI taxi takes them to Britain.
That may make a neat social-media story, but the actual system is considerably more mundane.
French services monitor potentially dangerous boats and offer rescue where necessary.
UK authorities monitor and intercept boats entering their area of responsibility.
HM Coastguard coordinates actual search-and-rescue incidents.
And the RNLI is called to only a small minority of them.
You may still think the whole system is badly designed. There is plenty to debate there.
But at least debate the system that actually exists, rather than the one implied by the “magic handover” story.
Can someone please explain this to me as if I'm a 5 year old.
Why are the dinghies not considered to be "in distress" or "danger" while they're being escorted and shadowed by the French Navy but then magically become vulnerable cases of "possible threat to life" once they get handed over to us and need "rescuing"?
I find this VERY hard to swallow.
David retweeted
AfD wygrała wybory w Saksonii-Anhalt i teraz może dostać najgorszą rzecz, jaka może przydarzyć się partii skrajnie populistycznej - odpowiedzialność.
Z polskiej perspektywy to może być niezwykle ciekawy eksperyment. Bo mechanizm AfD jest nam dobrze znany: wszystko jest proste, winni są jasno wskazani, wystarczy odsunąć “system”, ograniczyć migrację, rozprawić się z elitami i państwo zacznie działać. Tyle że po wyborach kończy się TikTok, a zaczyna Excel.
Saksonia-Anhalt jest idealnym miejscem do takiego testu. Land się starzeje, traci mieszkańców i ludzi w wieku produkcyjnym, ma problemy z dostępnością lekarzy, opieką, szkołami, transportem oraz utrzymaniem usług publicznych poza większymi miastami. Do tego dochodzi słaba dynamika gospodarcza, zagrożony przemysł i rosnące zadłużenie samorządów. To problemy strukturalne, których nie da się rozwiązać wskazując wroga.
I tu zaczyna się pierwszy paradoks AfD. Jedną z odpowiedzi na brak ludzi jest imigracja zarobkowa. Saksonia-Anhalt już dziś coraz mocniej korzysta z pracowników zagranicznych. Jeżeli AfD rzeczywiście zacznie realizować politykę odstraszania migrantów, może pogłębić dokładnie ten problem, który mieszkańcy odczuwają w przychodni, domu opieki, zakładzie pracy czy lokalnej firmie. Hasło “mniej obcych” zderzy się z pytaniem: kto właściwie ma tu pracować?
Drugi paradoks jest finansowy. AfD obiecuje jednocześnie niższe obciążenia, rozbudowane świadczenia, wsparcie rodzin, inwestycje i poprawę usług publicznych. IWH wyliczał jeszcze przed wyborami, że sam program AfD pozostawia co najmniej 2,2 mld euro rocznej luki. To klasyczny populistyczny produkt polityczny: każdy dostanie więcej, nikt nie zapłaci więcej, a pieniądze pojawią się po usunięciu “marnotrawstwa”. W Polsce tę konstrukcję znamy bardzo dobrze.
Najciekawsze będzie jednak to, czego AfD nie będzie mogła zrobić. Rząd landu nie ustala niemieckiej polityki zagranicznej, nie może samodzielnie wypisać Niemiec z UE, zmienić federalnej polityki energetycznej ani zrealizować dużej części antyimigracyjnej rewolucji. Gdy więc problemy pozostaną, AfD stanie przed wyborem: przyznać, że rzeczywistość jest bardziej skomplikowana niż kampania, albo znaleźć kolejnego winnego - Berlin, Brukselę, sądy, media i “deep state”. W Polsce znamy również ten etap.
Dlatego nie zakładałbym, że rządzenie automatycznie zabije AfD. Populizm potrafi przeżyć własną nieskuteczność, jeżeli skutecznie przekona wyborców, że niepowodzenie jest dowodem działania spisku. PiS po ośmiu latach władzy nadal potrafi występować jako ofiara elit, Unii Europejskiej, sądów i mediów. Konfederacja również buduje atrakcyjność na prostych odpowiedziach na problemy, których rozwiązanie po wejściu do realnej władzy wymagałoby kompromisów, podatków, administracji i decyzji niepopularnych.
Ale Saksonia-Anhalt może pokazać coś ważnego dla Polski. Populizm najlepiej testuje się nie pytaniem, czy lider mówi efektownie, ale czy po przejęciu odpowiedzialności poprawia codzienne doświadczenie obywatela. Czy łatwiej znaleźć lekarza? Czy szkoła ma nauczycieli? Czy firma znajduje pracowników? Czy gmina ma pieniądze? Czy inwestorzy przychodzą, czy uciekają? Czy młodzi zostają? W tym miejscu kończy się wojna kulturowa, a zaczyna klasyczna polityka.
Największym zagrożeniem jest jednak to, że AfD może oblać egzamin z gospodarki i usług publicznych, a jednocześnie zdać egzamin z przejmowania państwa. Rząd landu ma realny wpływ na edukację, kulturę, administrację, policję, finansowanie organizacji i lokalne instytucje. Populista może więc nie naprawić przychodni, ale za to szybko przebudować otoczenie instytucjonalne tak, żeby kolejny wybór obywatela odbywał się już w gorszych warunkach demokratycznych. To również znamy i powinniśmy traktować bardzo poważnie.
Wniosek: eksperyment w Saksonii-Anhalt może osłabić AfD tylko wtedy, gdy jej rządzenie będzie mierzone skutkami, a nie kolejnymi narracjami. Dla Polski to test szerszej tezy: czy wyborca populisty zmieni zdanie, kiedy zobaczy różnicę między łatwą obietnicą a trudnym państwem na zewnętrznym przykładzie. Nie ma żadnej gwarancji. Populizm nie ginie od zderzenia z rzeczywistością, jeżeli potrafi tę rzeczywistość skutecznie przepisać na kolejną opowieść o wrogach.
Ocena Doświadczeń Obywatela: 4/10 🟡
Rekomendacja: polskie partie demokratyczne powinny bardzo uważnie obserwować Saksonię-Anhalt i przestać odpowiadać populistom wyłącznie oburzeniem. Każdą prostą obietnicę trzeba sprowadzać do czterech pytań: ile to kosztuje, kto ma kompetencję, kto to wykona i jaki będzie mierzalny efekt dla obywatela. AfD może stać się dla Polski żywym laboratorium pokazującym, co dzieje się z populistycznym produktem politycznym po kliknięciu przycisku “wdrożenie”.
— #PolitycznyUX
David retweeted
Reform UK Financial Scandals
So far…
Clacton house: Farage said he'd bought it; his partner actually did.
£5m Farage gift: Undisclosed personal gift from Christopher Harborne; parliamentary inquiry ongoing.
£500k Cottrell donations: Police investigating whether Fiona Cottrell's donations concealed the true source.
£1.5m Cottrell transfers: George Cottrell transferred £1.5m+ to his mother shortly before her Reform donations.
£1m Tice transfer: Fiona Cottrell transferred about £1m to a company linked to Richard Tice.
£500k Tice/Reform donations: Police examining two £250k donations from Tice-controlled Britain Means Business.
£78k Tice loan: Cottrell secretly loaned £78,100 to Tice's company.
£32.5k foreign-funded polling: Undercover US "donor" funded polling commissioned for Reform.
£500k foreign-donation plan: Reform aide filmed discussing routing a US donor's money through his UK-based son.
£8m Ben Delo donations: The crypto billionaire, previously convicted in the US of AML failures.
David retweeted
Can you explain the principle you are actually advocating here?
Firstly, there are not “85 Sharia councils” as an established fact. The Government's independent review said there was no accurate figure and estimated between 30 and 85 in England and Wales.
Secondly, Sharia councils are not British courts. They have no legal jurisdiction and cannot override UK law. The Government confirmed that again in 2026.
But here's the bit I would genuinely like you to explain.
Britain also has Jewish Batei Din applying Jewish law to divorce, conversion, religious status and sometimes disputes. Catholics have diocesan tribunals applying Canon Law. The Church of England has ecclesiastical courts in its dioceses, plus appellate courts. The Church of Scotland formally calls its Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries and General Assembly “church courts”.
Indeed, the Government's own review of Sharia councils has an entire section entitled “Comparative groups in other religions”, specifically comparing Sharia councils with the Jewish Beth Din and Roman Catholic tribunals.
So when you say every Sharia council must be “demolished” because this is “OUR COUNTRY. OUR LAWS”, are you also calling for the abolition of the Jewish Beth Din, Catholic Canon Law tribunals and Christian ecclesiastical courts?
If you are, then at least your principle is consistent, although I would disagree with it.
If you aren't, why have you singled out the Muslim ones?
I have absolutely no difficulty saying that every religious body, Muslim, Jewish, Christian or otherwise, must operate within British law. Where there is coercion, discrimination, abuse or a safeguarding failure, deal with it firmly.
But that is already the fundamental legal position.
One law of the land does not mean one religion, nor does it mean religious communities cannot voluntarily govern their internal religious affairs. Religious freedom has always existed subject to the law.
The test should be behaviour, not which faith happens to be written above the door.
David retweeted
This gets repeated regularly, but it isn't the law.
Clause 61 really was in the 1215 Magna Carta. It created an enforcement mechanism involving 25 barons against King John. But the 1215 settlement was annulled within weeks, and Clause 61 was omitted from every subsequent reissue of Magna Carta.
The version which eventually acquired statutory status was the 1297 Magna Carta. Clause 61 isn't in it.
Today only three provisions of Magna Carta remain in force in England and Wales, concerning the Church, the City of London and due legal process. Clause 61 is not one of them.
There was a petition by hereditary peers in 2001 which purported to invoke Clause 61 over the Treaty of Nice. That happened. What did not happen was the resurrection of an obsolete medieval clause. Signing a petition saying that you are invoking a provision doesn't bring that provision back into law.
Nor can I find a reliable primary source for the claim that Lord Judge and US Chief Justice John Roberts ruled or agreed that Clause 61 remains legally operative today. They certainly discussed Magna Carta and its enormous constitutional legacy. That is a very different proposition.
Magna Carta matters enormously to the development of the rule of law.
It does not give any of us a present-day legal right to overthrow a government because we consider it tyrannical.
We can oppose governments, campaign against them, challenge them in the courts and vote them out. Those are genuine constitutional rights.
Inventing powers that Magna Carta does not give us weakens, rather than strengthens, the argument for the rule of law.
Just a reminder….That Article 61 of the Magna Carta gives people the power to legally overthrow a tyrannical government.
BOTH the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Judge) and Chief Justice John Roberts have agreed that article 61 is still valid today. The British parliament is lying to us all and stand under their made up fake law.
Clause 61 of the Magna Carta was invoked by 25 barons in 2001 and still stands today.
MAKE THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION GREAT AGAIN!!!!🏴