Pinned Tweet
These are the people whom Starmer, Rayner, Sarwar, Sturgeon, Swinney, Yousaf and other virtue signallers want to reward by recognising their murderous kind of terrorist state.
Haitch7 retweeted
They were announced in January. Theyâre being reannounced today because Big Green (RWE) and Big Capitalism (KKR), who will benefit from the massive state subsidies already being poured into these projects, have demanded more (to cover rising costs of developing offshore wind). So Labour has obliged with another ÂŁ1 billion from the so-called National Wealth [Destruction] Fund. Life is truly grand for the crony capitalists.
My suspicion is Miliband was very resistant to hand over his baby when promoted so he handpicked his equally fanatical and idiotic protege to keep his own policies and ideas running in Government
3
113
This is outrageous.
He decided to walk away from and then subsequently trash the monarchy. Heâs now decided heâs changed his mind and wants back in. He thinks we should all give him exactly what he wants. The King has to stand up against this.
This is disturbing.
What exactly are we looking at here? Prince Harry, a private citizen and NON-WORKING royal, seated at the European Parliament, shaking hands with officials and looking every bit like heâs conducting official royal business.
Is he a diplomat? NO. Is he representing the British government or the monarchy? NO.
Yet here he is, seemingly playing the part of a working royal on the international stage.
Harry stepped away from royal duties. He doesnât get to have it both ways.
At what point does advocacy become royal cosplay? And why does he continue to be given a platform that creates this impression?
STRIP THE DAMN TITLES!
Haitch7 retweeted
đ€Ż This has to be one of the most SHAMELESS bits of television Iâve ever seen.
Ed Balls is grilling Lucy Powell on @GMB over her role in the Ed Miliband/Russell Brand interview. She points out that they didnât know the full extent of the allegations about Brand at the time, and reminds Balls that he was also right there, serving as Shadow Chancellor.
What Balls says next is astonishing, especially given we have his actual reaction on camera from the time. He claims Brand had personally abused him on a TV show weeks earlier, so he was surprised the interview was even happening.
Except thatâs not what he said when it mattered. On Good Morning Britain, when Susanna Reid challenged him about the interview, Balls actively defended it. He went further, saying he himself would happily interview Brand if asked!
Absolutely unbelievable!
He is now rewriting history in real time, pretending he was somehow sceptical or taken aback, when the footage shows the exact opposite!
No longer a politician, but still deploying the same instinct to mislead and gaslight the public.
Watch the clip yourself, below this one, of Ed clearly defending the interview. Itâs insane!
đ€š Ed Balls Defends Russell Brand: âI Would Happily Interview Him.â
On @gmb this morning, Susanna Reid and Ed Balls discussed Brandâs infamous interview with Ed Miliband. Susanna was critical of Balls back on 29 April 2015, when he was Shadow Chancellor, for defending it, even though Brand had personally attacked him just months earlier.
On Channel 4âs Big Fat Anniversary Quiz in early January 2015, Brand called Balls a âclicky-wristed snidey c***â.
Hereâs that 2015 interview. Susanna presses him about going ahead with it despite knowing what Brand was. She asks if he knew about it, he did. She asks if, when he was told about it, he thought it was a good idea, he did. Kate Garraway then asks if he himself would do an interview with Brand.
Thatâs when he said: âI would happily go and do an interview with Russell Brand. The truth is that we need to kiss and make up after what happened a month or two ago.â
I hope they didnât!đ±đ€Ł
Fair play to Susanna Reid. No Monday morning quarterbacking from her. She knew then and said so then. Well done @susannareid100.
His reputation was well known by then. So itâs inexcusable theyâd court such a lowlife for votes.
Labourâs Lucy Powell, trying to explain why she was complicit on Ed Miliband interview with Brand in 2015, says a)it was before social media; and b) there was no easy way of checking on people in these days.
Which is strange since a) sheâd been on social media since 2009 and by 2015 it was in full swing; and b) Google has been available since 2000.
Other than that her explanation is entirely credible.
7
315
Haitch7 retweeted
Labour courted Brand *precisely* because it was the social media age. They thought his strong social media presence would help them. It was the main point Owen Jones made in his infamous column. Powell is actively lying.
Lucy Powell on the Ed Miliband Russell Brand interview
Sophy Ridge: In 2015, Ed Miliband was interviewed by Russell Brand. And he was invited over to his house to do it. It's been reported that you were the one who set up the interview. Is that true and do you regret it?
Lucy Powell: Look, I mean, it wasn't quite like that. It was a long time ago, obviously. And had I or Ed Miliband or anybody at the time had any sense at all that this was someone who was a sexual predator, who was involved in these sorts of crimes or any allegations that were known at the time, then, of course, that interview I'm sure would not have happened, history would have been very, very, different. Those things unfortunately, weren't known at the time. But I think, like anybody who paid to go to his show or watched him on TV, or who was his employer at the time, who had interactions with him, anybody, including those of us who were involved in that at the time,would look back and really regret that, knowing today what we now know
Sophy Ridge: You were campaign chief, did you set it up? Were you involved in the process?
Lucy Powell: Look, I mean, he approached the Labour Party, he approached the campaign team, and weâre in very different times now. We weren't in the social media age at the time - where you could maybe search things up and see allegations about somebody at the time. and as I say, if there was any suggestion at all, we were dealing with someone who was a known sexual predator at the time, then, of course, you know, no one would have done that. But as I say, he was a well known public figure. Lots of people from Hollywood to the BBC to many others gave this person a very, very powerful platform. And we didn't know at the time, unfortunately. It was a different era.
Haitch7 retweeted
Lucy Powell can easily explain it was a mistake to associate the Labour Party with Russell Brand without making the easily falsifiable claim that 2015 was not âthe social media ageâ.
Just be honest.
Lucy Powell on the Ed Miliband Russell Brand interview
Sophy Ridge: In 2015, Ed Miliband was interviewed by Russell Brand. And he was invited over to his house to do it. It's been reported that you were the one who set up the interview. Is that true and do you regret it?
Lucy Powell: Look, I mean, it wasn't quite like that. It was a long time ago, obviously. And had I or Ed Miliband or anybody at the time had any sense at all that this was someone who was a sexual predator, who was involved in these sorts of crimes or any allegations that were known at the time, then, of course, that interview I'm sure would not have happened, history would have been very, very, different. Those things unfortunately, weren't known at the time. But I think, like anybody who paid to go to his show or watched him on TV, or who was his employer at the time, who had interactions with him, anybody, including those of us who were involved in that at the time,would look back and really regret that, knowing today what we now know
Sophy Ridge: You were campaign chief, did you set it up? Were you involved in the process?
Lucy Powell: Look, I mean, he approached the Labour Party, he approached the campaign team, and weâre in very different times now. We weren't in the social media age at the time - where you could maybe search things up and see allegations about somebody at the time. and as I say, if there was any suggestion at all, we were dealing with someone who was a known sexual predator at the time, then, of course, you know, no one would have done that. But as I say, he was a well known public figure. Lots of people from Hollywood to the BBC to many others gave this person a very, very powerful platform. And we didn't know at the time, unfortunately. It was a different era.
Haitch7 retweeted
Labourâs excuse that âwe didnât knowâ about Russell Brandâs behaviour in 2015 simply doesnât wash. His disgusting call to Andrew Sachs happened in 2008, & there were countless public appearances where his gross behaviour was plain for all to see. Did people know the full extent, no, but the man's views & treatment of women were vile & out there.
The fact that Lucy Powell is the only one being pressed on this is wrong. She was working for Ed Miliband. He should also be held accountable. And the PM should have been asked about his own judgement yesterday, his tweet in 2014 telling Brand to âkeep goingâ and describing it as âdepressing to see media mission to discredit someoneâ was extraordinary given Brandâs public history at that point.
He really has some gaul to drag out his backside for a try at cosplaying as a faux Royal ⊠again. He doesnât understand the word respect.
Haitch7 retweeted
Important to hear Jemima Goldsmith's side of the injunction story as well as her own experience at the hands of Brand.
I am going to describe some painful and personal things in relation to Russell Brand because I have been put in a position now where I feel that I have no choice other than to do so, given the misleading reports and speculation around the facts of a harassment injunction that was taken out to protect me and my family.
Firstly, and most importantly, I am and have always been strongly and unequivocally on the side of all of Brandâs victims. I am in awe of the courageous women who came forward at Brandâs trial, told their stories, testified and ensured justice was done. I have had my own personal experience of his violence, coercive control and abuse. I had to call the police to have him removed from my house in 2014 during a violent incident. I chose not to press charges at the time and not to go public with this, as I was worried about the impact of the press attention on my then teenage children. I have neither seen nor spoken to Brand since that period in 2014. Whilst my pain in relation to this, pales in comparison to what the women have testified in court have suffered, this was a difficult period in my life which has had a lasting impact.
Over several years, I assisted the journalists who finally exposed him; Ros Urwin, Louisa Compton and Dorothy Byrne. I also undertook to testify in court to his abusiveness, if the newspaper that published the victimsâ accounts were ever to be sued.
I have spent much of my professional career trying to support unfairly demonised and silenced women, such as Monica Lewinsky and defending free speech.
In 2014, a harassment injunction was taken out against a woman called Szilvia Berki which was made final in 2015.Â
I fully understand the good intentions of those now advocating on her behalf online and agree with their demand for this harassment injunction to be varied, as my lawyer made clear to Berkiâs lawyer in December last year.
However, the commentary and media reporting this week has presented an untrue narrative, which has opened me up to vile hatred and abuse online.
For this reason, and to correct the record, I am providing the factual background to that injunction to explain why The High Court found the campaign of harassment by Berki against me to be, "oppressive and unacceptableâ and made the order permanent.
The background to this is that Ms Berki came to my house for roughly 30 minutes in June 2014, after I booked her to give a massage to Brand. By the time she arrived he had decided he didnât want a massage and asked her to leave. She was clearly offended. I was present the whole time he was with her, and I did not see anything untoward, despite the fact that he was later found guilty of sexually assaulting other women and he later physically assaulted me. If I saw any man abuse any woman under any circumstances, I would do my utmost to stop them, without hesitation.
Ms Berki later reported to the police that Brand had pushed her in the back whilst she was leaving the house and that she also said she was âattackedâ by my dog, which she described in her police statement as my dog licking her face. The police rightly investigated Ms Berkiâs complaint. I cooperated fully with the investigation, provided a truthful statement about what I saw and also provided CCTV footage, which showed my overly exuberant but totally unaggressive dog jumping up. Â
Following an investigation into Ms Berkiâs allegations, police concluded that there was no case to answer and that no criminal offence had been committed.
According to the police, at no time did Ms Berki ever state to them that she had been assaulted, threatened or falsely imprisoned.
There was also a subsequent review of the investigation by the IPCC and Thames Valley Police Professional Standards which found that the original police investigation had been correct in its findings.
In the meantime, several untrue stories appeared in the tabloid papers. Ms Berki forwarded an email to me confirming a payment for one such story she had received from The Sun newspaper. Articles were also published in The Telegraph, The Mail and The Mirror at Ms Berkiâs instigation which contained her account of the alleged incident.
Then having at first said in a story published by the Daily Mail that she had found me to be âreally very nice, very, very nice,â she later embarked on a campaign of vicious antisemitic and threatening abuse online and in emails.
Below is just a sample of some of those tweets and messages sent over many months (which were submitted to the judge who granted the harassment injunction)-
(Jemima is a) âdeeply rotted JEWISH Bitchâ
âDid you know that if your life is in danger you can LAWFULLY kill your attacker as defence?! ⊠by now I could have lawfully kill at least 5-6 people who were hurting meâ
âAlso happy birthday (Jemima). I hope you have more. In other words I hope you donât die this year.â
EMAIL- âIf you make me very upsetâŠyou can expect the worts from me â I think you know this â without that I need to remind youâ
âWhat is going on in Britain is a dictatory of J evils. English Jewish Evil dictatoryâ
âWould like to see justice, and I do not think that I should do it myself but what can I do when every organisation is scared of Jevils! ;)â
âThey say ⊠Do not hate all Jews because you know a few Jewish evils. They are on top always decadent and evilsâ
âFortunately there are many mansions outside of the UK where Jewish money aristocrats are still not welcomed
#Germany #Austria #Italy #Hungaryâ
"Judge on High Court: I ordered her to shut up Jew. Do I have a case or not? soon we will kill her then".
âA pity that I was in the UK. BB In Hungary if you would report the Police they would for sure find it without an investigation already that the Jews are guilty. Sadâ
âEvery organisation is scared of JEVILSâ
âWhen my great grandparents see what Jews did to me they do something in heaven to solve this. I will not make my hand dirty with Jews.â
âJ evils ⊠Rob, lie, crimeâ
âI am so happy I am free from the English Jewish Evil dictator and outside of England the High Court cannot ruleâ
âProbably I wait a bit more and than go public. What is going on in Britain is a dictatory of J evils.â
She sent an enormous volume of similarly disturbing emails and tweets to or about me, to my family, to my workplace, to journalists from the national media to members of my family, to UNICEF UK where I had been a goodwill Ambassador for decades, and to organisations my ex-husband was associated with, and to MPs.
She began disseminating on social media wild and untrue allegations about me, ranging from kidnap to cyberhacking, to having someone bump into her and laugh at her in the tube station, having her followed by two men, bribing the police, paying off a judge, and other false and alarming conspiracy theories based on my Jewishness.
The number, tone and content of these messages was extremely frightening. It was distressing for my then teenage children and my family. I was concerned that Ms Berki was potentially a real danger to my family and me. I have had stalkers before and this behaviour felt similarly threatening.
Although I was at this point no longer in contact with Brand, I agreed to the suggestion by his lawyer of a harassment order. My sole reason was to stop Ms Berki targeting me and my family. The harassment injunction was upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal on several occasions.
I engaged a lawyer of my own when I was made aware that Berki was applying to the court to vary the terms of the injunction. And I instructed my lawyer in December last year to approach Ms Berkiâs barrister to say that I agreed to vary the injunction so that she could speak to the police again if she wanted to. I also instructed my lawyer to engage on her other requests.
I did this despite my real fears that the harassment would re-commence and that her threatening antisemitism, if again unleashed, might exacerbate the danger to my children and me that we continue to face because of our Jewish heritage and their fatherâs political career and incarceration in Pakistan.
Her barrister has not responded to my lawyer since May of this year despite trying to engage him. I was informed by her lawyer that any change to the injunction must also be agreed by Brand.  I have no ability to compel Brand in this matter, as I have not seen or spoken to him in over a decade.
I hope this information will help clarify speculation about my involvement in the anti-harassment order.
I am glad and relieved that Russell Brand has finally faced justice.
Haitch7 retweeted
To see leftist podcasters, comedians, and commentators laugh about political assassination as though itâs entertainment and the destruction of a human life is a punchline, is beyond disgusting.
My husband, Charlie Kirk, was killed in an act of political violence, something our two children and I will live with every day for the rest of our lives.
A culture that laughs at assassination is one of profound moral decay. It threatens the very foundation of our country and the principles that hold our democracy together.
You do not have to agree with someoneâs politics to recognize the value of their life. This should not be so hard.
Political violence must never be something this country tolerates, excuses, or celebrates.
Haitch7 retweeted
Iâve never been less surprised in my life.
ABDUL EL SAYED FAILS BACKGROUND CHECK FOR CLASSIFIED SENATE BRIEFINGS
By Jonathan Gregory
Washington, DC - November 8, 2026
Abdul El Sayed has failed the background check required for classified Senate briefings. The denial blocks him from any session that involves sensitive national security information. Officials who conduct the clearances reported that the review did not meet the standards necessary for access to restricted materials. The failure leaves open the question of what specific issues prevented approval.
Senators who receive classified briefings must clear the same process before they can attend. El Sayedâs rejection means he cannot participate in those meetings. The decision places him outside the normal flow of information that other members receive. Americans who expect every senator to qualify for the same briefings now see one individual excluded by the clearance system.
The denial raises direct concerns about what the background check uncovered. Officials have not released the precise reasons but the result itself is public. Voters who supported El Sayed must now consider whether a senator barred from classified sessions can fulfill the full duties of the office. The clearance failure stands as the official record until any appeal produces a different outcome. The standard remains the same for every member of the chamber.
@TrumpNews
ALT THE SENATOR: Abdul El Sayed Who Failed the Background Check Required for Classified Senate Briefings!
ALT THE CLEARANCE: Classified Document Graphic Representing the Restricted Materials El Sayed Is Now Barred From Viewing!
ALT THE CAPITOL: Michigan State Capitol in Lansing Representing the State That Sent El Sayed to the Senate Before the Clearance Failure!
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
US Senators do not undergo formal background checks or security clearances for classified briefings; they receive access by virtue of their elected constitutional office. No reports confirm Abdul El-Sayed (elected Nov 2026) failing any such process.
congress.gov/crs-product/R4âŠ
reuters.com/world/us/abdulâŠ
legalclarity.org/do-senators-haâŠ
Haitch7 retweeted
I avoided commenting on this yesterday because it was Remembrance Sunday - something quite obviously missed by the Scottish Government.
Nearly 190,000 Scots have perished in the service of our country since 1914. But the self-styled Government of Scotland actively chose not to recognise this in any official comms yesterday- the day we all paused to remember them and those that fell with them for our peace, freedom and democracy.
Bandi Chhor Divas is a hugely important date in the Sikh calendar. But over 83,000 Sikhs died fighting for peace and freedom in uniforms of the British Commonwealth, in both World Wars. And over 200 serve in the British Armed Forces today. A fact also ignored.
The SNP Scottish Government, led by John Swinney, could have recognised both the celebration in the Sikh Calendar and our shared Remembrance of our fallen.
But they didnât.
That they didnât shows a callous disregard to history, to those that fell, their memory, their families and those still serving. And letâs face it- the SNP chose not to because those fallen were wearing the Union flag on their shoulder.
It says everything you need to know about these charlatans masquerading as statesmen. They donât speak for me. They donât speak for a majority of Scots.
Theyâre an utter disgrace @CelticFC
Haitch7 retweeted
Posted at 11am as the majority of our Nation fell silent for two minutes on Remembrance Sunday.
Whoever was behind this should be sacked.
Haitch7 retweeted
Who knew that people fought in the World Wars for Erasmus+?
Every time you hear these Labour ministers, you lose brain cells.
Haitch7 retweeted
Contrast this with the politicians lined up just around the corner on that same Whitehall, deliberately rolling back their rights and making them live in fear for their courageous service in Northern Ireland.
Haitch7 retweeted
I am ashamed we put these soulless charlatans into power! SNP.
đș
If I calculate correctly, this warm message from @scotgov was posted at 1100.
But I still have not found any reflection here, to this being Remembrance Sunday?
