Generally impatient with officialdom and slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.
England, United Kingdom
Joined December 2020
- Tweets40.9K
- Following4.7K
- Followers2.2K
- Likes63.7K
Steve Price retweeted
According to the law in Canada, yes, voyeurism IS a man walking into a room where men have no sexual consent to be. Women and girls are entitled to bodily privacy, and voyeurism *cannot* ever be legalized because nobody gets to vote on which men are allowed to see our naked bodies.
Canada's idiotic gender self-ID policy violates the Criminal Code (in addition to violating international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) which means our Prime Minister @MarkJCarney is, as I regularly remind him, technically, a sex offender because he is criminally complicit in sex crimes against women and children.
Steve Price retweeted
🚨Cheshire East Council just painted poppies on the roads to honour our fallen.
Meanwhile half the country’s councils are busy erasing history, renaming streets, and lecturing everyone about ‘diversity’.
One council still remembers who built and defended this country.
The rest are busy apologising for it.
Steve Price retweeted
Stab a boat, instantly locked up until trial.... threaten to cut a woman's throat you are free until sentencing and then you don't turn up.
Don't fucking tell me there's not two tier policing and justice in this country.
Steve Price retweeted
On behalf of the British people, I would like to apologise for the slave trade. I am sorry we were the first great power in history to turn its guns on it. I am sorry it cost us around 2,000 sailors to free 150,000 people they would never meet. I am sorry the rest of the world took so long to follow.
Slavery did not begin with Britain. It is as old as civilisation. Babylon wrote it into law. Rome built an empire on it. The Vikings sold Englishmen through the slave market at Dublin. In 1625 Barbary corsairs took 60 men, women and children out of a Cornish church; by 1640 Parliament was told 3,000 to 5,000 English people were held in Algiers alone.
Every great power of the age took part in the Atlantic trade. Portugal and Spain for a century before an English ship did. Then the Dutch, the French — and the British, who in the eighteenth century carried more than anyone. That is the record. It is not disputed here.
Then a nation turned on the trade that had made it rich.
Wilberforce's bill was beaten year after year. On 25 March 1807 it passed. Then Britain did the part the critics never mention — it sent the Royal Navy to enforce it. The West Africa Squadron sailed in 1808, two ships for 3,000 miles of coast, and hunted slavers for nearly sixty years. Britain paid Spain and Portugal to open their ships to search. HMS Black Joke ran down the slaver El Almirante in 1829 and found 466 people in her hold.
Around 2,000 British sailors died doing it — most of fever, to free people they would never meet. 1,600 slave ships seized. 150,000 Africans set free.
In 1833 Parliament borrowed £20 million to end slavery across the Empire. The debt was not finally redeemed until 2015. The United States needed a civil war. Cuba held slaves until 1886. Brazil until 1888 — eighty-one years after Westminster voted.
Yes, we took part in the trade. Every power of the age did. None of them fought it like we did.
So yes. I will apologise. I am sorry it cost us so much. I am sorry the rest of the world took so long to follow.
That is not something you apologise for. That is something you teach.
#history #britishhistory #royalnavy #westafricasquadron
Steve Price retweeted
I've worked for myself since I was 24, employed 2 people. By the time I was 25, 10 by the time I was 30.
I worked alongside these people and did the same hours. When they switched off at 5pm I continued doing other jobs for the business.
On their days off I was in work .
SOUND FAMILIAR?
The wages I paid them bought things like houses and cars furniture clothes etc
I did something Labour seem to frown on , I made some money.
With the money I made I bought things too
Delivery vehicles, staff cars, premises, pensions then I wasn't a burden in the state .
I bought houses, cars, caravans, boats, holiday, home improvements, gardening tools, furniture,
Clothes etc .
So all the people me and my staff spent their money with also made money .
Some of them were small busin sees too !
But the Labour MP Emma Reynolds chief secretary to The Treasury doesn't see me and other small businesses as WORKING PEOPLE
😳🤦🤦
I think Labour needs to wake up from their Marxist fantasy
👇👇👇
Steve Price retweeted
If, as The Telegraph reports, Burnham is going to make reparation in the shape of millions towards health and education in the Caribbean to “atone” for the slave trade, I guarantee that he will lose a General election whether he calls it sooner or later. A shocking decision.
The guy’s a dud.
Steve Price retweeted
I have never denied that people who call themselves trans exist and in the UK, they rightly have exactly the same rights as every other citizen. What you want is for women to lose their sex-based rights to accommodate men who say they're women. That's the conflict.
Steve Price retweeted
CELEBRITY TRAITORS WINNERS HANDED £83,000 OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY TO REFUGEE CHARITIES 😡
Sebastian Croft and Romesh Ranganathan split the jackpot. Croft sent his £41,500 to Choose Love, for queer refugees. Ranganathan sent his to the Refugee Council.
This is licence fee money. Taxpayers' money.
Not one penny to our veterans. Not one penny to homeless Brits or the food banks. Not one of the small British charities crying out for cash.
Really? This is what our money is being spent on, just highlights the BBC DEI propaganda campaign they have.
What do you think of their choice of charities? 👇
Steve Price retweeted
A lot of us were very willing to have a debate without heat, @stonewalluk, and the reason that never happened wasn't because gender critical feminists didn't want one.
While we were trying to get you to listen to our concerns, your former CEO was telling a BBC boss that gay people not wanting to include the opposite sex in their dating pool was 'sexual racism'. While we were pointing out the homophobia inherent in gender ideology, Stonewall ambassador Alex Drummond (a bearded, heterosexual man who'd had no surgery and taken no cross-sex hormones but liked wearing skirts), was going into schools to talk to students about his 'lesbian' identity. @BluskyeAllison, who actually is a lesbian, was subject to unlawful discrimination at her place of work for tweeting: ‘Stonewall recently hired Morgan Page, a male bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called [it] “overcoming the cotton ceiling”.’
When the UK Supreme Court upheld women's right to single sex spaces, you issued a statement expressing your unhappiness about the ruling. In her report on your unhappy influence at the University of Essex, you were found by barrister @akuareindorf to have misrepresented the law as it related to women's rights: '[Stonewall have] stated the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is’.
In 2018, you publicly advised schools to shred a research pack saying there were risks to puberty blockers, in spite of the fact that you aren't a medical charity and that there was already credible evidence that puberty blockers are neither irreversible nor harm-free. Meanwhile you produced your own educational packs, recommending a children's book, for ages 5-9, in which the parent 'is neither a man, nor a woman – they’re non-binary.' In July 2022, Stonewall sent out a tweet that read ‘Research suggests that children as young as two recognise their trans identity'.
@thetimes has reported how you've sought to control the language used by NHS trusts and government on their social-media accounts. Organisations would get points from you for replacing commonly understood words with ideologically approved terms, eg, 'birthing parent' instead of 'mother'. thetimes.com/uk/society/arti…
In short, you took a maximalist position on gender identity ideology, which you attempted to enforce by diktat. You refused to acknowledge that you'd hitched your wagon to a cause that, unlike civil rights, gay rights or women's rights, sought to strip rights from others. You sought to curtail everyone's right to freedom of speech and belief by controlling what it was permissible to think and say, through the management and political class. You have argued against women's and girl's rights to their own spaces, their sports and to assemble without men. Your former CEO tried to shame gay women/men into dating the opposite sex if the latter claimed to be female/male.
Your mantra was 'no debate' because, like all totalitarians, you preferred slogans, bullying and infiltration of powerful institutions to talking to opponents. You appear to have had no concern for the lowly people your ideology was harming: gender confused kids, female rape victims, female prisoners, regular people hounded and investigated at their places of work for refusing to accept the new mandates on sex and gender issued from on high.
Your 'activism' has been a disaster for those trans-identified people who really do just want to get on with their lives in peace. You have besmirched the name of an organisation many of us were once proud to donate to, the charity that was partly responsible for securing the legal right of gay people to marry, which a lot of us thought would never happen in our lifetimes. The milquetoast words quoted below do not erase a decade of gender activism that has been disastrous not only for individuals but for society as a whole.
There was once a debate to be had, but until you acknowledge the direct harm you've caused, it is no more possible to debate you than to persuade a person in the throes of a drug-induced psychosis that they are not, in fact, the reincarnated Christ.
Steve Price retweeted
A powerful intervention from the head of the Army. Something is coming, and government needs to wake up.
He says the public will have to make sacrifices so we can prioritise defence and security.
This is no time for “national security can’t come at the expense of social security”. Hard choices are coming whether ministers like it or not.
I have been clear where I would start: cut welfare spending and put the money into defence.
Steve Price retweeted
Slavery was an evil in which people from every continent and region participated. We should be honest about the whole history, not select the parts that are politically convenient today, especially given Britain's leading role in ending the transatlantic slave trade.
If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?
On demands for reparations, whether through cash or debt relief, we have been down this track before. Twenty-five years ago, Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt and Make Poverty History argued that cancelling the debts of poorer countries would give them a fresh start. More than $100 billion of debt was eventually written off, but many of those countries have since built up even bigger debts. Labour are already spending too much on Britain's welfare state, now is not the time for Andy Burnham to be providing global welfare.
There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who don’t know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.
As Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should be Britain’s greatest defender. Instead, he is writing articles saying we need to confront our history (as if we haven't done enough of that) and considering another formal historical apology. Tony Blair already expressed Britain’s deep sorrow and regret for our role in the slave trade nearly twenty years ago. There is no need to do so again.
This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats. If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.
Steve Price retweeted
Looking across to Europe today and the last few weeks.
The EU has destroyed Europe.
Totally destroyed it.
Woke green agenda, mass deindustrialisation and Mass Third World immigration.
They've ripped the Hearts out of Nation States.
The EU is a monster.
Steve Price retweeted
Patrick Stewart. Turned up so early and so unobtrusively to be a star in the reasonably priced car, we mistook him for a delivery driver and asked him to go round the back. Took his hat off and said, “But I’m the captain of the Enterprise”. Fucking nice guy.
Steve Price retweeted
Look what’s lurking on page 118 of the Budget document…
Once again, the government has delegated one of our most politically salient questions to an unaccountable body of experts …
👇
“For all the Budget’s uneventfulness, there was buried in the small print something more pernicious and revealing of this government’s priorities.
Tucked away on page 118 of the Budget document, the Treasury announced that, from next spring, employers will be allowed to recruit certain foreign workers on lower salaries than the current rules permit.
That is to say, the government is making it easier for businesses to rely on immigration rather than recruiting and training Brits.
Let us not forget we have a million Neets.
While Alan Milburn beavers away on his long-awaited report into the youth employment crisis and the government pays lip service to its commitment to tackling it, Burnham and Healey have decided to make it easier to hire from abroad.
What is the purpose of spending billions educating our young people who are then unable to secure jobs?
Or then spending billions more supporting them as dependents on the state?
It should be a truth too obvious to state that a government’s first responsibility is to its own citizens and ensuring they have a reasonable chance of getting a job, but then such sentiments can no longer be taken for granted.
And it is not just this one concession.
Elsewhere in the Budget are plans to give some migrant workers longer to find another job if their employment ends, as well as expanding visas for foreign graduates and allowing more international students to remain in Britain after finishing their degrees.
Where did this change to salary thresholds come from?
Tellingly, it was recommended by the ‘Migration Advisory Committee’, an influential body headed by a handful of academics but which most people aren’t even aware exists.
Once again, the government has delegated one of our most politically salient questions to an unaccountable body of experts.
But ultimately the buck stops with ministers.
The Migration Advisory Committee’s members are appointed by the home secretary, and its recommendations are not binding.
This is a familiar Whitehall trick: turning a political choice into an administrative inevitability.
For a government which claims to want to ‘Get Britain Working’, making it easier to recruit workers from abroad while almost a million young Brits remain languishing without work is an odd way of going about it.
And even more tragic is what it suggests: that Labour appears to have so little faith in the people that it governs”
Spectator.
Tucked away on page 118 of the Budget document, the Treasury announced that, from next spring, employers will be allowed to recruit certain foreign workers on lower salaries than the current rules permit.
The govt is making it easier for businesses to rely on immigration.
Steve Price retweeted
Can someone explain why Keir Starmer, who is no longer Prime Minister or even part of the Government, has been allocated legal representation through the Government Legal Department for the National Grooming Gangs Inquiry, while victims and survivors have had to secure their own representation and apply for funding?
Why is a former Prime Minister receiving government legal support while survivors face additional hurdles?