MrsRealityUndercover

Every word.

Let’s break down what Maggie Oliver is doing in the High Court today. Taxpayers funded a seven-year inquiry into child sexual abuse, costing over £200 million. Survivors relived their trauma, institutional failures were exposed and 20 recommendations were made to protect children. And the Government’s defence? That it is not legally obliged to implement those recommendations. So we pay for public inquiries, victims suffer all over again, and governments can simply choose not to act. What is the point of an inquiry if its findings can be ignored?

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.

Russell Brand: The shameful truth about those who turned a blind eye youtu.be/5hfFwqW_e9s?si=2gXy… via @YouTube

🚨BREAKING: #UK authorities will round up and charge citizens who RETWEET any material deemed as "inciting hatred"

Grandmother with terminal cancer 'abandoned' in hospital storeroom for 48 hours after it ran out of beds trib.al/G3vRGrR

Man jailed after attempting to enter UK at London Gatwick with fake passport. Breaking into a country is a crime now is it?

What Muslim woman would be carried round the ring on the SHOULDERS OF A MAN. What a cheat HE was.

🚨NEWS: An ISIS recruiter named Mohammed Mizanur Rahman who encourages people to wish death on British soldiers through social media has been found living in a taxpayer subsidised £300,000 home in London

In the next ten years, humanity will make one choice that decides the next thousand. Option A: an Orwellian world run by a tiny hyperclass that controls AI, owns every resource, and turns the rest of us into permanent dependents. Option B: for the first time in history, a world where the systemic corruption that has ruled us for decades simply stops being possible. Yesterday I wrote that Milei and Bukele exposed the empire of lies. Javier Milei reposted it. Today I want to explain why that post was only the beginning, and why I've never been more optimistic. If you're on the left, or even the far left, read this one to the end. I'm not trying to convert you. The stakes are your future too. Start from first principles. A system produces exactly what it rewards. For decades, the Western system has been captured by one worldview: administrations, universities, NGOs, media, international institutions. The left didn't win the argument. It won the hiring committees. Once a system is captured, its incentives flip. You don't get promoted for solving problems. You get promoted for managing them. A solved problem kills a budget line. A managed problem renews it every year. You don't succeed by telling the truth. You succeed by saying the right words. So hypocrisy becomes a career skill. The professor who preaches equality and runs the most closed network in the country. The politician who votes for open borders and lives where none of it ever reaches him. You don't build fair systems. You build systems that look fair and quietly pay the people who run them. Inflation is a tax on the poor that funds the state. Programs fund the consultants who design more programs. That's what "systemic" means. Nobody has to be evil. Honest people inside the machine either adapt or leave. After forty years, the ones still there are the ones who adapted. Here's the irony. The first countries to break free were the ones at the very bottom. Argentina was bankrupt. El Salvador was a graveyard. The system had nothing left to promise them, and that's exactly why they woke up. When the lie stops paying, people stop believing it. No civilization is dead as long as its people can still see the problem clearly. Rock bottom is often where the rebound starts. Now the West is caught in a vise. On one side, AI. A technology that exposes managed incompetence. When a model can read a 2,000-page law, audit a national budget and compare outcomes across 50 countries in seconds, "it's complicated" stops working. The expert class loses its monopoly on knowledge. On the other side, a generation of tech builders who think from first principles and don't owe their careers to the system. They have more capital, more talent and more reach than most countries. And they've seen up close how the machine works. Put the two together and the old system is close to checkmate. It can't compete on results. It can't hide behind complexity. It can't control the narrative anymore. So what does a system do when it can't win? It tries to own the thing that's beating it. Listen to Marc Andreessen. He has said publicly that in 2024 he sat with Biden administration officials who told him AI would be two or three big companies working hand in hand with the government, that investors shouldn't even bother funding AI startups, and that parts of the underlying math could be classified the way nuclear physics was in the Cold War. He walked out and endorsed Trump. Former Biden officials now say that's not what was said. Read both versions and decide who you believe. The logic doesn't depend on one lunch, though. Control three companies and you control the models. Control the models and you control what billions of people read, ask, learn and are allowed to say. Add a digital ID, a programmable currency and the scanning of private messages that Europe keeps putting back on the table. Then you don't need a Ministry of Truth anymore. A compliance department is enough. 1984 with a better UX. And last Tuesday, Democrats took back Congress. This isn't theoretical anymore. The keys to the house are on the table. Now imagine we don't hand them over. Intelligence becomes almost free. Expertise stops being a privilege. A kid in a village in Brittany or a suburb of Lagos gets the same doctor, the same lawyer, the same tutor as a billionaire's son. The cost of producing almost everything collapses. And systemic corruption becomes nearly impossible, because anyone can audit every budget, every law and every promise, instantly. For the first time in human history, a society that could be truly equal. The old left version was equality by sharing scarcity. This one is equality through abundance. A world where poverty stops being a law of nature. Which is exactly what the left always said it wanted. So to my friends on the left, one honest question. Which side actually leads there? The side that wants AI open, cheap and in everyone's hands? Or the side that wants it locked inside three companies and a regulator? Milei and Bukele proved the impossible was possible at the scale of a country. AI is offering the same thing at the scale of civilization. All we have to do is not give the keys to the people who were paid to keep the problem alive. That's the choice. And I've never been more optimistic, because for the first time, we can all see it.

To my friends on the left. You're about to be sold the most elegant trap in modern history. It will come wrapped in everything you care about: the planet, workers, justice, the climate. If you buy it, it will deliver the exact opposite of everything you've ever fought for. Let me show you where it comes from. In 1944, two philosophers of the Frankfurt School, Horkheimer and Adorno, wrote that reason and technology, the tools that were supposed to free humanity, had turned into tools of domination. Twenty years later, Marcuse argued that modern technology was the most sophisticated system of social control ever built. Brilliant men, with a real insight. But the lesson a whole generation of intellectuals took from them was simple: progress is suspect, and the machine is the enemy. In 1968, the Club of Rome was founded. It was a small circle of industrialists, diplomats and scientists. Notice who was in the room. No workers, no farmers, no one from the slums. In 1972 they published The Limits to Growth. The message was that if humanity keeps growing, it collapses. So slow down, consume less, have fewer children, accept less. Around the same time, Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb predicted that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s. Here's what actually happened. The Green Revolution fed billions. The mass famines never came. In 1980 the economist Julian Simon bet Ehrlich that resources would get cheaper, not scarcer, and he won. Extreme poverty went from more than a third of humanity in 1990 to under one in ten. That didn't come from degrowth. It came from growth, energy and technology. The pessimists were wrong about almost everything. But they won something more important than the argument. They won the institutions: UN agencies, NGOs, university departments, think tanks, Brussels. Nobody needed to coordinate. The ideas simply became the water everyone swims in. Growth is guilt. Technology is danger. The answer is always less. Less for you, that is. Never for the people at Davos who fly private to discuss your carbon footprint. Now watch what happens with AI. They'll connect it to the planet. Data centers drink water, burn gas and raise your electricity bill. Some of that is locally true, and the people living next to those sites deserve to be heard. Last March, Bernie Sanders and AOC proposed a national moratorium on new AI data centers, backed by hundreds of organizations. So ask the oldest question on the left: who benefits? A moratorium on new data centers freezes the ones that already exist. Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Meta already built theirs. A moratorium doesn't stop Big Tech. It crowns Big Tech. The startups, the public universities, the open-source labs, the countries of the Global South that were about to build their own are the ones who never get to. It's the greatest gift ever offered to an oligarchy, wrapped in green paper. And here is what nobody tells you. AI isn't the planet's problem. It's the fastest path we have to solving the planet's problems. AI is already controlling the plasma inside experimental fusion reactors. It has predicted the structure of nearly every known protein, which opens the door to enzymes that eat plastic and crops that need less water and less fertilizer. It has proposed hundreds of thousands of new stable materials for better batteries and cheaper solar. It forecasts weather and balances electric grids so renewables can actually work at scale. Every problem you care about is, at its core, an intelligence problem. Clean energy, food, water, disease, poverty. Make intelligence abundant and those problems become solvable. Make it scarce and the solutions belong to whoever owns it. That's the real trap. Fear of AI won't make AI disappear. It will only decide who owns it. A world where intelligence is rationed creates a new aristocracy. On one side, a small class with unlimited cognitive labor at its command. On the other, everyone else, dependent on that class for their health, their education, their job, their permission to speak. No chains. Just dependency. That's how every modern form of servitude has worked, and the left used to understand that better than anyone. Everything the left has ever wanted has never been closer: the end of poverty, healthcare and education for every human being, workers freed from exhausting labor, a planet that can breathe. Marx dreamed of a society where you could hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon and criticize after dinner. That isn't a world of scarcity. It's a world of abundance. Abundance is the only thing that has ever freed anyone. So stay on the left if you want. Keep fighting for the poor, for workers, for the planet. Just fight with the most powerful tool humanity has ever been handed, not against it. Because the people asking you to give it up already have theirs.

Horror scenes in the centre of Kraków as a terrorist leaves a trail of destruction and death in Poland. Pray for the Polish people 🙏🏻 Pray for the victims 🙏🏻

Burnham's & Labours Taxpayer Flights A321 London Stansted to Manchester £20,000 Caribbean Summit Trip: £250,000 Starmer: £4.2 million. 39 foreign trips Lammy's travel costs: £3,507,568.39 Khan: £68,330 short haul trips Ed Miliband: £87,000 Self Serving Hypocrites taking the piss

Brussels Wants a Say Over Who Britain Can Deport. Why Is It Even Up for Discussion? Andy Burnham is preparing to travel to Brussels promising growth, cheaper trade and closer ties with the European Union. Yet leaked papers reveal what Brussels wants in return. More British money, greater regulatory alignment and restrictions on Britain's ability to deport European criminals. Before the Prime Minister signs anything, the public deserves to know what he might concede. The deportation demand is troubling. According to Sky News, EU governments object to Britain's new arrangements allowing foreign offenders to be removed immediately after sentencing. They want more warning and information before those offenders are returned. That sounds like an administrative matter. But procedural requirements can easily become obstacles to action. What constitutes reasonable notice? Seven days? Thirty? Six months? Who decides whether sufficient information has been supplied? What happens when a receiving country demands further documents, challenges the arrangements or refuses to accept that the conditions have been met? Without clear deadlines and enforceable obligations, reasonable notice could become an indefinite delay. Britain could retain the legal power to deport offenders while finding that exercising it had become increasingly difficult. There are legitimate questions about how offenders are transferred between countries, particularly when sentences have not been served. Those questions require practical arrangements, not open-ended restrictions. The British government must retain the ability to enforce its own criminal and immigration laws without allowing foreign governments to frustrate removals through repeated procedural objections. A British government source says Burnham will reject the EU's demand. Good. But the public should see that refusal reflected in the final agreement, rather than discover later that a supposedly reasonable compromise has created another obstacle to deportation. Then comes the money. Brussels wants Britain to contribute towards reducing economic and social disparities between EU regions as part of an electricity trading agreement. Britain was a net contributor to the European budget throughout its membership, apart from 1975. Now, six years after leaving, we are being asked to consider financing EU regional development again. What would taxpayers receive in return, and why should electricity trading require payments towards spending programmes elsewhere in Europe? The same questions arise over regulatory alignment. British businesses that never export to the EU could find themselves subject to future European rules over which Britain has no formal vote. Burnham argues that removing trade barriers will boost growth. There are genuine economic benefits to easier trade, but those benefits must be weighed against the financial costs and loss of regulatory freedom. Meanwhile, the EU's leaked draft reportedly offers little more than further dialogue over industrial trade tensions. Britain is being asked to consider concrete obligations while some benefits remain promises to negotiate. Burnham cites a Treasury estimate that the proposed agreements could increase GDP by 0.4 per cent. That is a forecast, dependent on the eventual terms, rather than a guaranteed return. It cannot settle questions about democratic accountability, public expenditure or control over deportations. Britain should trade and cooperate with its European neighbours. But Parliament must see the full price of any agreement before it is signed. That means published financial commitments, clear limits on regulatory alignment and a guarantee that EU governments cannot use procedural demands to obstruct the removal of convicted offenders. The Prime Minister says the public will be the boss. He should start by telling them exactly what Brussels is asking them to accept.

ITS LIVE GET YOUR COPY NOW BEFORE ITS BANNED **The Grooming Gang Cover-Up**