. . . retweeted
Let’s be clear:
If I’m not going to sleep with you, I don’t need to know anything about your sexuality.
And children—who are not going to sleep with anyone—certainly don’t.
Your sexuality is not sacred. It’s not a personality, it’s not a protected class of performance art, and it’s not the center of anyone’s moral universe but your own. Unless we are in a relationship, I am not obligated to acknowledge, affirm, or be exposed to your private desires—especially not in public, and especially not in front of children.
This used to be understood. Now it’s called hate.
No, We Don’t Owe You an Audience
Sexuality belongs in the private realm. It is intimate by definition. If you feel compelled to wear your kink on your sleeve—or on a float, or in a first-grade classroom—you are not inviting understanding, you are demanding submission. You are violating others’ right not to participate.
Consent doesn’t vanish because your fetish is “progressive.” If anything, the burden is higher.
No one consents to being flashed on the subway. No one consents to a stranger’s arousal. No one consents to a stranger telling their child about masturbation, kink, gender identity, or pornographic categories under the guise of “inclusive sex ed.” Yet all of this is happening now—in public parks, in classrooms, in televised programming.
It is not tolerance. It is invasion.
Children Are Not Here to Validate You
Children are not queer. Children are not sexual. Children do not need to “see themselves represented” in a spectrum of adult desire. This idea—that identity is only valid if sexualized and mirrored—is narcissism, not pedagogy.
There is no legitimate reason to initiate a child into the language of sexual preference, gender identity, or alternative lifestyles. The only people who benefit from that dynamic are those looking to normalize boundary violations.
Let me state it plainly:
Children who are not going to have sex do not need to be exposed to sexuality.
Period.
Any adult who insists otherwise is not confused. They are grooming.
Public Fetishism Is Not Liberation
There is a vast difference between being gay and demanding the right to simulate sex acts in front of children. Between being transgender and insisting on teaching kindergartners about breast removal. Between being proud of who you are and insisting the whole world observe your kink play in the street.
This is not diversity. This is decay.
Men in dog masks being walked on leashes by their lovers are not brave—they are forcing strangers into their psychodrama. This is exhibitionism, and when children are present, it becomes criminal exhibitionism.
We used to know this. Peeping, flashing, voyeurism—these were considered red flags. Dangerous behaviors. Early signs of escalation. Now they’re filmed, hashtagged, and funded by public grants.
Stop Calling It Love—It’s Entitlement
This is not about who you love. It’s about how you demand to be seen. If you need the entire public to witness, applaud, and adapt to your sexuality, you’re not a pioneer—you’re an emotional colonizer.
Love does not demand a captive audience. It does not parade past toddlers. It does not demand that schools teach four-year-olds about “preferred pronouns.” Love protects children. Love guards modesty. Love waits.
And if you can’t wait—if you need to be seen, affirmed, and obeyed—you’re not talking about love. You’re talking about power.
Consent Applies to Culture, Too
We teach children that consent is sacred—so why are we failing to apply that lesson to public life?
No child consents to drag queen story hour.
No parent consents to leather harnesses on city floats.
No woman consents to being exposed to male sexuality in the ladies’ room, or in the school library, or anywhere she cannot opt out.
Consent is not just for sex. It’s for everything.
Attention. Language. Presence. Ideology. Imagery.
And we are done pretending we don’t notice when it’s violated.
The boundary is back.
And we are drawing it in bold.
. . . retweeted
So why the fuck didn't they bring her back in? Do they KNOW they're the police? What the HELL?
. . . retweeted
🚨 THE DIGITAL PRISON IS ALREADY HERE.
Good morning to the millions of hardworking Brits waking up to a brand new surveillance state.
55 million adults will soon need to hand over their passport or face scan just to use X, Instagram and YouTube.
Every single adult. Not just teenagers.
450,000 people signed a petition to scrap it in days. The government said no!
The same government that cannot track 224,700 failed asylum seekers wants your biometric data before you are allowed to post a tweet.
This was never about children. Screenshot this before they bury it. RT if you refuse. 🇬🇧🔥
. . . retweeted
Bloody well put @ShelaghFogarty
. . . retweeted
Peter Murrell was not a criminal mastermind he just took advantage of a system devoid of adequate checks & balances and a culture where scrutiny and questioning were demonised. That culture has infected the Scottish government, our Parliament & our civic life. It needs to change.
. . . retweeted
"No, I don't subscribe to this 'kindness' - I'll tell the truth instead."
I spoke at the Cambridge Union last night about LGBs, children's safety and women's rights. Full video here:
. . . retweeted
That's a good read, Allan. It highlights what many of us are saying.
I don't know how to educate the population regarding our electoral system. Many have tried, including @IndyScotParty
Allowing foreign nationals to sit in our parliament is absurd.
Shame on the political class!
. . . retweeted
2/2
Working class Scots are struggling to heat their homes in an energy rich nation, young Scots cannot afford housing in their own communities, rural Scotland is being hollowed out, public services are crumbling, families are relying on foodbanks, yet the political class in Edinburgh and London behaves as though pronouns, press releases and constitutional theatre are more important than the survival of the Scottish people themselves.
This election must be the moment Scotland wakes up, not at the next election, NOW.
The Scottish Parliament was supposed to be the voice of the Scottish people, not a careers club for party loyalists and managerial politicians terrified of upsetting Westminster, Scotland does not belong to London, it does not belong to political parties , it does not belong to corporate lobbyists and it certainly does not belong to political elites who view the people of this country with contempt.
It belongs to the people who built it, the workers, the carers, the pensioners, the fishermen, the farmers, the nurses, the tradesmen, the mothers and fathers trying to hold families together while governments fail them year after year.
The future of Scotland will never be secured by fear, weakness or career politicians, it will only be secured when the people of this nation finally stop voting emotionally, stop voting tribal and start voting strategically for Scotland itself because if we continue sleepwalking through election after election, surrendering our power to parties that exploit hope while delivering nothing, then we will have nobody left to blame for the loss of our nation but ourselves.
. . . retweeted
1/2
In 2014, the people of Scotland were told we were too poor, too wee and too stupid to govern ourselves, we were lectured, sneered at and talked down to by the British political class and their media machine, remember when they told us our pensions would vanish, our economy would collapse, our businesses would flee and our nation would fail.
Fear was weaponised against the Scottish people every single day and then came perhaps the most insulting comment of all from Johann Lamont, who infamously claimed that Scottish voters’ “brains are not programmed” for making political decisions.
Well, twelve years later, we now know Scotland was never too poor, we sit on vast natural wealth, we produce world class food and drink, renewable energy, oil and gas resources, scientific innovation and some of the most talented people anywhere in the world. Tiny nations across Europe thrive with fewer resources than Scotland possesses in abundance.
We know Scotland was never too wee, countries far smaller than ours stand proudly as independent nations with their own voices, their own economies and their own futures, Scotland has the population, the resources, the history and the democratic mandate to stand on its own two feet, but by God, Johann Lamont may have been right about one thing, too many Scottish voters keep making the same catastrophic political mistake over and over again.
First, Scotland voted against independence after being terrified by Project Fear, then election after election, vast numbers of independence supporters hand their regional list vote straight back to the Unionist parties by blindly voting SNP with both votes under a system specifically designed to stop independence majorities from becoming reality and when they are not doing that, many throw their list vote behind the so-called Greens, a party that has repeatedly treated Scottish independence not as a national mission, but as a convenient electoral slogan while pursuing fringe ideological obsessions that alienate ordinary working Scots from the cause of independence itself.
The Scottish Parliament electoral system was deliberately constructed to dilute majority support, the regional list is not there as a bonus vote for your favourite party, it is there to balance representation, yet every election, independence supporters walk willingly into the same trap, gifting seats to Labour, the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and now Reform while complaining afterwards that Scotland never gets the super majority it voted for. That is not democracy working, that is political conditioning and now matters have gone even further beyond common sense.
It has been revealed that changes were made allowing non-full-time residents of Scotland not only to vote in Scottish elections but also to stand for the Scottish Parliament and become MSPs. For many ordinary Scots, this raises profound questions about national identity, democratic accountability and the future direction of the country.
People are increasingly asking, what exactly defines Scottish democracy anymore? What connection should those making laws for Scotland have to the nation they seek to govern?
These are legitimate democratic questions and dismissing them as somehow unacceptable to ask only fuels public anger further.
Across the world, national parliaments exist to represent the settled population and long-term interests of their nations. Yet in Scotland, ordinary people are made to feel ashamed for even discussing identity, sovereignty, borders or national cohesion while Westminster parties carve up our country, our economy and our political future without consequence. Meanwhile, Scotland’s culture, traditions and identity are increasingly treated as inconveniences rather than treasures worth defending.
. . . retweeted
Most people miss this:
If a woman says, “I feel unsafe with men in this space,” and that still isn’t enough to keep men out, why does a man saying, “I feel uncomfortable being excluded,” suddenly become a “civil rights” emergency?
This bullshittery is so blatant, it’s an insult to double standards.
Women’s discomfort gets waved off as irrational, hysterical, “jealous,” or relabeled “bigotry.”
Men’s discomfort with being told “no” gets treated like a problem that everyone else has a moral obligation to solve.
Pick a damn lane.
Either discomfort matters, or it doesn’t.
But here’s the trick: this isn’t actually about comfort. It’s about safety.
And despite how often men-who-think-they’re-women scream, “I’m not safe for us in the men’s room!!!”… reality shows that they 100% are.
Women, however, are NOT safe with men in our intimate spaces.
Every person with a functioning brain stem knows this.
But for the brainstem-impaired, allow me to spell out the obvious:
It’s biology.
Yeah—the biology people want to pretend is irrelevant because of men’s feelings.
Their feelings don’t change the fact that women can be impregnated, which makes potential rape—BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING—an even bigger threat than it already is.
Their feelings don’t change immutable factors like arm length, grip strength, airway size, heart size, and lung capacity, which mean—BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING—95% of men are physically capable of killing 90% of women using only their bare hands.
Their feelings don’t change the fact that—BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING—women don’t urinate standing up. We have to partially undress and assume a physically vulnerable position to do it.
And their feelings don’t change the fact that this means women don’t have the same —ahem—"backup options” if we need to relieve ourselves:
Such as an alleyway, a bottle, or whatever other semi-private workaround men can and do use with relative ease.
But, funnily enough, I don’t hear people talk about those realities very often, even within this debate.
What I hear is:
“Sex and gender are different!!!”
Okay. Cool.
Then why does your “gender identity”—literally defined as a deep, intrinsic FEELING—override women’s biological realities and the safety needs that follow from them?
Why is the EMOTIONAL discomfort of men treated as more important than the PHYSICAL safety of women?
And if women’s safety and boundaries aren’t “valid enough” to justify separation...
Then men’s feelings of exclusion aren’t “valid enough” to demand inclusion, either.
So which is it?
Because right now the message is loud and clear:
Women’s comfort is optional.
Men’s comfort is decisive.
And women’s safety?
…that’s not even a consideration.
So the only question left is:
How long are we going to let it stay that way??
. . . retweeted
Gender: A Brief Obituary for a Word That Deserved Better, by @FraserDAnderson
Being risk averse, I always avoid getting involved in controversial topics...
"The moment you tell everyone about it, loudly, on the internet, with a personal pronoun and a manifesto attached, it is no longer private."
open.substack.com/pub/sweetf…
. . . retweeted
I'm voting @IndyScotParty on the list.
After this if I could vote twice for them I would.
This is clearly a swivel eyed Green or SNP woman hating loon that made this happen.
What kind of independence are we to have with the shameful newspaper propagandists running the media?
. . . retweeted
I am not a lawyer but I’m revelling in the outbreak of careful legal understatement from my learned friends regarding the Sandie Peggie judgement.
