Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
A great rant from a friend:
“I don't know who's running the British newspapers at the moment, but I reckon somebody's accidentally given the editorial jobs to a bunch of fucking doomsday preppers.
Have you seen the absolute state of the news lately?
World War Three. Nuclear Armageddon. Russian cyberattacks. Chinese hackers. Emergency survival kits. How to prepare for the end of civilisation.
Every bloody newspaper seems to be running the same story.
You'd think Vladimir Putin had been spotted at Dover services with a tank and a packed lunch.
And apparently, the most important thing we can do to prepare for all this is go shopping.
Seriously.
We're being advised to stockpile food, water, torches, batteries and enough toilet roll to survive the collapse of Western civilisation.
Do they genuinely believe we're all going to read these articles, leap off the sofa and charge down to Asda like there's a fucking trolley dash on?
I reckon somebody's looked at the Christmas retail figures and thought, "How can we get these bastards to spend another two hundred quid?"
"Tell them the Russians are coming."
"Brilliant. We'll shift those seventeen pallets of corned beef we've had sitting in the warehouse since Easter."
And what exactly am I supposed to do with all these emergency supplies if there's a nuclear attack?
Imagine it.
You're sitting in your living room, minding your own business, when suddenly there's an enormous flash outside.
The windows explode. The roof comes off. There's a nuclear shockwave tearing through the city, flattening everything in its path.
And there you are, crawling across the kitchen floor, desperately trying to get the fucking tin opener out of the drawer.
"QUICK! SOMEBODY GET THE BEANS!"
What fucking difference are beans going to make?
You're about to be vaporised at several thousand degrees. I don't think the nutritional benefits of baked beans are going to be particularly relevant.
But the politicians are the funniest part of all this.
Angela Rayner was asked what she'd be stockpiling.
Sauvignon Blanc and mascara.
Sauvignon Blanc and fucking mascara!
I love that.
The world's coming to an end, millions could die, civilisation might collapse, but Angela's making sure she's got a decent bottle of white and her eyelashes done.
Then Andy Burnham comes along telling people not to stockpile alcohol because they need to keep a clear head.
Well, thank Christ we've got that sorted.
One politician's preparing for the apocalypse like she's going to an all-inclusive resort in Tenerife, and another's telling everybody to drink responsibly.
And apparently Andy's emergency supplies include Twiglets.
Fucking Twiglets.
I mean, at what point did the national security discussion turn into everybody comparing what they've brought to a children's birthday party?
We're supposedly facing the possibility of World War Three, and our political leaders are having a conversation that wouldn't sound out of place in the middle aisle of Aldi.
And then there's the cyberattack warnings.
Apparently, Russia or China could launch a massive cyberattack and bring down our communications, electricity supplies and essential services.
Right.
And what am I supposed to do about that?
Unplug the kettle?
Put the laptop in a biscuit tin?
I can just imagine some highly trained Russian cyberwarfare specialist sitting in Moscow, surrounded by millions of pounds' worth of sophisticated computer equipment.
"Comrade, we have penetrated the British national infrastructure."
"Excellent. Shut down their electricity."
"We cannot, sir."
"Why not?"
"Some bastard in Ellesmere Port has wrapped his Virgin Media router in fucking Bacofoil."
It's a good job Churchill isn't around to witness this.
"We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall never surrender."
"Unless we've run out of Pot Noodles, in which case we're absolutely fucked."
What a fucking pantomime.”
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
I don’t want to post the video. You’ve all seen it. But I do want to write a love letter…
Dear everyone in Britain, ( even you illegals)
Just so you understand. The poppy is for the boys who never got to grow old. For the boys who were still somebody’s baby, brother, uncle or father. More than 600,000 of them.
It doesn’t matter if you support war, hate your country, think you are a woman (even though you are a man). It doesn’t matter which God you pray to, or if you pray to none at all.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for, what climate narrative you believe, or whether you believe Israel should exist or not!
The poppy isn’t for you!
It’s for those who came before. Those who fought for your right to be weird, annoying or even foreign.
The poppy is how we say thank you. Thank you for giving us time, peace and choice.
And attempting to ban our poppy by declaring it politically divisive isn’t a move towards freedom. It is an act of suppression. Understand that.
The poppy is about love and loss. For you!
So stick your rainbow flags and every other flag where the sun doesn’t shine and just wear your poppy. Those boys did not die as symbols. They died for you!
Did you know that poppies grew across the battlefields where so many fell? As though even the land refused to forget the blood once given to defend it.
So the poppy is for them. For those who came before us and paid in youth, in hope, in breath, in blood, so that we might have the freedom to be arseholes.
So that we might even have the freedom to fight over the ridiculous, the inconsequential and the insane.
Revere it, celebrate it and wear it. The very least you can do is that.
Best
The ordinary people.
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
An Open Letter to the University of Sydney @Sydney_Uni @mscott
Regarding the appointment of Jacinda Ardern as Professor of Practice
Dear Professor Scott,
I read with absolute disgust that the University of Sydney has appointed Jacinda Ardern as Professor of Practice, where she will apparently be sharing her wisdom on empathetic leadership, social cohesion and civic trust.
You cannot be serious.
You are quoted as saying:
"Dame Jacinda led New Zealand through events of profound consequence and her leadership demonstrated that empathy and resolve do not compete with one another; each can strengthen the other."
Appointing Jacinda Ardern to teach social cohesion is rather like appointing Jeffrey Dahmer to teach a course on wellbeing, or Jimmy Savile to run the local daycare centre. The sheer absurdity would almost be funny if the consequences of her leadership weren't so hideously tragic.
My name is Alia Bland. I am a co-founder of Voices for Freedom, an organisation established in New Zealand in 2020. For years, we stood alongside tens of thousands of ordinary Kiwis whose lives were torn apart by the policies of Ardern's government.
While the international media fawned over her kindness and compassion, we were dealing with the wreckage.
At the height of the COVID response, we were receiving upwards of 1,000 emails a day. Desperate people reaching out because they had lost their jobs, their incomes, their homes and, in many cases, their will to live.
People nearing retirement were forced to sell family homes they had spent decades paying off. Some are still living in caravans five years later.
Marriages collapsed. Families fractured. Lifelong friendships were destroyed. People who had served their communities for decades were suddenly treated like lepers because they declined a medical procedure.
Some of the people who came to us had spent their entire lives believing New Zealand was a decent, fair-minded country. Watching that belief crumble, and seeing what it did to them, was heartbreaking.
I cannot adequately describe the anguish in those emails. The desperation of parents wondering how they would feed and house their families. The humiliation of hardworking people being marched out of professions they loved. The despair of people who had done everything society asked of them, only to discover that their own government considered them disposable.
And presiding over it all was Jacinda Ardern, smiling for the cameras and telling the world how kind New Zealand was.
Kind? For whom?
Her government deliberately created a two-class society. Ardern herself acknowledged it publicly. New Zealanders were excluded from workplaces, businesses, events and ordinary social life. People were coerced into accepting a medical intervention under threat of losing their livelihoods.
And those who suffered adverse reactions to the COVID vaccines faced another nightmare. We fought for vaccine-injured New Zealanders whose lives had been devastated by serious physical harm, while many struggled to have their injuries acknowledged or receive adequate support.
The government's public assurances about vaccine safety deserve particular scrutiny. Officials knew about the myocarditis risk, including among young people. We have examined the records. Yet people raising legitimate questions about those risks were routinely dismissed and vilified.
The damage went far beyond lost incomes and broken relationships. An enormous number of New Zealanders lost faith in the very institutions they had trusted their entire lives. Government, health authorities, education, police and the media. That trust has not magically returned because Ardern has moved on to more prestigious surroundings.
While her government was busy marginalising people, we were building a nationwide support network to help them survive.
Voices for Freedom grew to more than 100,000 people on our mailing list, many representing entire families. More than 45,000 people signed up to our local groups across the country, which are still operational today in 2026. We established industry groups to help people fight for their careers, provided support through employment disputes and legal challenges, organised practical assistance and hand-delivered millions of flyers to households throughout New Zealand.
We did this while facing censorship, public vilification and government surveillance. Official records obtained since have confirmed that our activities and communications were being monitored and reported on.
Our volunteers gave everything they could to help people who had been abandoned by the institutions meant to protect them.
And now the University of Sydney wants to hold up the woman responsible for overseeing this period as a shining example of empathy and social cohesion?
It is sickening.
Professor Scott, did anyone at your university bother to speak with the people whose lives were destroyed under Ardern's leadership before celebrating her appointment?
Have you spoken to the former nurses, teachers and police officers who lost their careers? The families who lost their homes? The people still suffering from vaccine injuries? The parents whose children no longer speak to them?
Or did you simply swallow the carefully cultivated international image of Saint Jacinda, the compassionate leader who saved New Zealand?
I wonder whether you have considered why this internationally celebrated former prime minister now lives in Australia rather than the country she once led. The depth of hostility towards her among many New Zealanders should give you pause.
Because I can assure you, there is another side to that story. And there are hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who live with the consequences.
I have no objection to universities studying Ardern's leadership. In fact, I would encourage it. There is an enormous amount to learn from what happened in New Zealand between 2021 and 2023. Like, what not to do...
But presenting her as someone uniquely qualified to teach empathy, social cohesion and civic trust, without acknowledging the extraordinary human suffering that occurred under her leadership, is an insult to the people who paid the price.
We were there, Professor Scott. We saw what happened. We picked up the pieces. We are still picking them up.
Some of those people will never recover what they lost.
And the woman who presided over it all gets a professorship in empathy.
What an absolute disgrace.
Yours sincerely,
Alia Bland
Co-founder, Voices for Freedom
New Zealand
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
Most Western democracies have been hacked. Not with code. With institutional architecture. Let me show you how it works, using the most advanced example: the European Union.
First, how it works. Once every five years, you vote for a European Parliament that cannot even initiate legislation. The body that proposes laws is the Commission: 27 commissioners nobody elected, appointed after backroom bargaining between heads of state. Bills are then negotiated between the Commission, Parliament and Council in "trilogues", closed-door meetings where the real decisions get made. A law that will apply to 450 million people goes through corridors that 99.9% of them will never see.
Now look at who's in those corridors. Brussels has become the lobbying capital of the world: nearly 18,000 organizations on the transparency register, tens of thousands of lobbyists, more than 50 for every single MEP. And that's just the declared part. Add the revolving door: a former MEP only has to wait six months before becoming a lobbyist to the EU himself.
The real problem is distance. A national MP who votes for a law that ruins the farmers in his district runs into them at the market on Saturday. In Brussels, the decision-maker never meets the people who live with his decisions. But he meets lobbyists every day: at lunch, at cocktails, at conferences. So the system doesn't optimize for the wellbeing of the people. It optimizes for the interests of whoever is in the room. You don't even need corruption for that, incentives are enough. Although sometimes, as Qatargate showed, there's corruption too.
The result: the system has a structural incentive to accept things the people would never vote for.
Take Mercosur. Twenty-five years of negotiations. France votes against it in the Council in January 2026 and gets outvoted. To keep national parliaments from blocking it, the Commission splits the deal into two texts, including a trade agreement that only needs a vote in Brussels. The European Parliament itself writes, in black and white, that this split circumvents the right of national parliaments, and refers the deal to the EU Court of Justice. The Commission's response: it has been applying the agreement provisionally since May 1, 2026, without waiting for the Court's opinion. Farmers were protesting outside Parliament. They lost anyway.
And remember the one time the people were actually asked about Europe directly: in 2005, France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution. The text came back two years later as the Lisbon Treaty, ratified by parliaments. No more referendums.
But the worst of it is immigration. In 2015, relocation quotas were imposed by qualified majority on countries that had voted against them. Since June 12, 2026, the Pact on Migration and Asylum applies across the entire Union, with its "mandatory solidarity" mechanism: you take people in, or you pay. Not a single European people has ever been consulted directly on this, even though it's the issue that is transforming our societies most profoundly.
And this is where we have to talk about the most sophisticated piece of the machine: George Soros.
Soros understood before anyone else that you don't need to win elections if you shape the ecosystem around the people who make decisions. His network, the Open Society Foundations, describes itself as the largest private funder of advocacy groups in the world. In Brussels, it runs its own lobbying arm aimed at EU institutions, the Open Society European Policy Institute.
Here's what we know from internal documents leaked in 2016: a document titled "Reliable allies in the European Parliament" listed more than 200 MEPs. Strategy papers described building "inside-track groups" to caucus "internal allies" who could advance their goals in their daily work. Training sessions were organized for MEPs on how to counter so-called populist parties.
The mechanism is brutally elegant. Think tanks produce the "expertise". NGOs produce the "demand from civil society". Legal NGOs litigate in the courts. Funded media outlets produce the narrative. The Brussels decision-maker, cut off from the population, hears the same message from every direction and ends up believing that this is what people want.
And the craziest part: the institutions fund the loop themselves. Between 2021 and 2023, the EU paid around €7.4 billion to NGOs, and the European Court of Auditors found the use of that money insufficiently transparent. It even came out that the Commission had funded NGOs to lobby MEPs in favor of its own Green Deal legislation. The institution pays "civil society" to ask it to do what it already wanted to do.
All of this is legal. That's exactly what makes it a hack and not a crime. The system works exactly as designed, except nobody designed it for the people anymore.
The patch is simple to state and hard to impose: bring decisions back closer to the people who bear them, hold referendums on issues that change a civilization, create a mandatory register for every influence actor, NGOs included, with their funding sources, and shut the revolving door. Until that happens, European democracy will remain what it has become: a user interface sitting on top of a system that runs for someone else.
🤖 Made with AI
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
The plumber and £5 pint story of how much the government is rinsing everyone in taxes. It’s not the cost of living crisis, It’s the cost of government taxation crisis.
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
Let me just say
It’s pretty disgusting to see Via Monte Napoleone in Milan, Italy 🇮🇹, one of the most famous shopping streets in the world, boarded up because of all the immigrants we’ve let in under the globalists’ European directives…
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
Wow, wow, wow. I just left the National Press Club where Minister of Communications @AnikaWells spoke. She repeatedly and brazenly lied about the fake accounts, claiming they were only for enforcement, even though the legislation says in black and white that the eSafety Commissioner can use them in unlimited ways for "educational" and "promotional" purposes.
One big moment came when a Politico reporter got up and said something about how mean people like @PaulineHansonOz were to eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant. Seriously. A supposed reporter was white-knighting for a government official during the official Q&A. The same reporter had come up to me before Wells' speech and asked if I had criticized Inman-Grant. Who needs government censors when you have Politico?
After he asked his question, Wells showed the most emotion, describing online criticism of Inman-Grant as "abuse." She also talked about her own staff's supposed suffering. I kid you not. The mask dropped, and you could see what really upset her: people — including a sitting Senator — criticizing government officials.
After gaslighting the audience about fake accounts, Wells repeatedly insisted the government wasn't trying to censor content. She said this after filling her speech with examples of content she claimed harmed people. You couldn't make it up.
This legislation is the culmination of decades of progressives equating words with physical violence. Wells cynically compared her legislation to prevent psychological "harm" to various laws that protect people from physical harm, like seat belt laws.
BTW, Wells never said what content it was that she thought caused eating disorders. Pictures of skinny women? Dietary advice? Who knows. Nobody asked.
Another important moment came when Wells explicitly said Australia would be pursuing censorship alongside other nations, including the UK, France, and Spain—all countries where governments risk losing power to populists.
I spoke with Julie Inman-Grant before the speech began and asked about the fake accounts. She insisted they were there just for enforcement, and when I asked why the law allowed them to be used for government propaganda, she said she might write an "enforcement memo," which, of course, would have no impact on the legislation.
After her speech, I went up to Wells and asked if she was seriously saying the legislation didn't allow the government to use fake accounts for government propaganda. She refused to answer. A man who said he was from the National Press Club stepped in front of me and said I could interview her afterward. But that wasn't possible because they rushed her out the back to avoid any difficult questions.
So there you have it. The pettiest people in Australia are seeking to silence citizens and their political opponents in the name of protecting children. These deeply intolerant and cynical people want to control what you can see and say online. And they're doing it with most of the media's support. Australia has reached a new low in its rapid descent into dogmatism, intolerance, and censorship.
The government today will introduce sweeping censorship that @AlboMP & @AnikaWells lie about. Below she claims the government wants to create a bot army of fake accounts for “research” when the bill clearly intends for them to be used in partisan warfare against fooled citizens.
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
I didn’t really get the problem with gender ideology at first.
I’m liberal-minded about most things. ‘Live and let live’ has generally been my motto. I believed in inclusion, kindness and not causing unnecessary offence.
I knew some adults chose medical treatments or surgery to resemble the opposite sex. That seemed to me a matter of personal autonomy. Adults can do what they wish with their own bodies.
What I hadn’t realised — and I feel slightly embarrassed admitting this — was that I’d misunderstood what was being claimed.
I thought “transgender” meant a form of self-expression. A man who liked wearing women’s clothes. Someone changing their name. Gender non-conformity.
What I hadn’t grasped was that some activists weren’t just asking for tolerance. They were asserting that declaring yourself the opposite sex made you the opposite sex. Not metaphorically. Literally.
And that this wasn’t just cultural. It had legal consequences.
It meant men who said they were women were demanding access to women’s sports, prisons, domestic violence shelters and hospital wards.
It meant the rewriting of healthcare language — “pregnant people”, “bodies with cervixes” — to avoid saying “women”.
It meant children struggling with identity being affirmed onto medical pathways with lifelong implications.
And also redefining same-sex attraction. Lesbians called ‘bigoted’ for not wanting relationships with men who identify as women. Gay men accused of prejudice for saying they’re not attracted to female bodies.
I’d also overlooked how deeply this had spread into public institutions, schools and workplaces.
And how easily disagreement was framed as cruelty. Speaking up felt risky — because others were being publicly humiliated for doing so.
None of this is abstract.
Because sex is the basis on which safeguarding works. On which data is collected. On which cancer screening programmes run. On which fair sport and single-sex spaces depend. It’s written into law — including the Equality Act — because material differences matter.
If sex becomes a ‘feeling’ rather than a biological category, those protections become unstable.
And once reality becomes negotiable, everything does.
Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it.
But I needed to be sure.
So I read. Books, research papers, policy documents. When I finally spoke publicly, there was backlash from all directions.
Many women thanked me, while some feminists criticised me for speaking too late.
Others were angry about a past interview I’d done with the parent of a transgender person, accusing me of promoting harm.
It takes courage to speak when you know your reputation, friendships or livelihood may be on the line — when you know raising your voice could strain, or even end, relationships you value.
Once I understood what was at stake, staying silent was no longer an option.
I lost my livelihood simply for saying I didn’t like the phrase “pregnant people”. That alone tells you something is deeply wrong.
It shouldn’t be this way.
I don’t expect praise for admitting it took me far too long to understand what was happening. Or to say so publicly.
I can only be honest about what I believed then and what I understand now.
But it does take courage to admit publicly that you got something wrong. All I hope is that by acknowledging I wasn’t paying enough attention, another woman (or man) might feel emboldened to do the same.
Because, as many of us know first-hand, there can be professional, social and financial consequences to speaking out.
And I won’t pretend I understood something before I did, simply to make myself more acceptable to those who got there sooner.
Which is why I will never judge another woman for how long it takes her to find her voice.
Because every voice matters. Whenever it is raised.
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
New York Democrats have declared WAR ON THE AMISH. Thanks to their unconstitutional attack on religion, they're now able to fine EACH unvaccinated Amish child $2,000 EVERY SINGLE DAY.
⠀
The $118,000 bill is one day, not the cap. Three one-room schools alone already owe that much for 59 children, at $2,000 each.
⠀
Health Commissioner Mary Bassett imposed it on December 15, 2022. She called the sum conservative because it assumed only one day out of compliance.
⠀
Dygert Road was billed $52,000 for 26 children. Pleasant View was billed $46,000 for 23.
⠀
Shady Lane was billed $20,000 for 10.
⠀
Footnote 9 of the Second Circuit opinion records the state's view. Each day an unvaccinated student attends is a fresh violation and a fresh $2,000 fine.
⠀
Another day for those 59 children is another $118,000. A 180-day year at that rate is about $21 million, and the families say they cannot pay the first bill.
⠀
Joseph Miller, Jonas Smucker, and Ezra Wengerd run the schools. The schools sit in Clymer and Heuvelton, plus the Canajoharie settlement, and take no public money.
⠀
They had a religious exemption for decades. On June 13, 2019, Democrats repealed it after measles spread through Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Rockland County.
⠀
Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill. Governor Kathy Hochul left it in force.
⠀
A parent may not excuse a child for faith.
⠀
Senator James Skoufis said the exemption was made up and fake. Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz called it utter garbage.
⠀
Counsel Aaron Siri told the New York Post the families can pay only if the state takes their land. Some in the community have talked of leaving the state.
⠀
The case is Miller versus McDonald. The Second Circuit ruled against them on June 30 in 2026.
⠀
A Supreme Court petition was due around September 28.
Make sure EVERYONE sees this. If WE don't stand up for these incredible men and women - WHO WILL?!?!?!
⠀
Where is the “my body my choice crowd now”? 
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
Hamas Disappointed Leftists Don't Believe They Massacred Jews After They Went To All The Trouble To Livestream It buff.ly/vcZkB7P
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
Australia, where the judges are telling us the ordinary meaning of “woman” includes men & the ordinary meaning of rape includes “limited insight into societal norms in Australia.”
May I suggest that judges are helping to destroy the societal norms & this needs to be addressed…
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
In the first series of Clarkson's Farm, a young woman told Jeremy Clarkson his sheep would never make money, and the wool cheque proved her right before the year was out.
Ellen Helliwell was the shepherd he hired when it became clear he could not manage 78 ewes himself. She lambed them through the night, treated their feet, and told him the arithmetic at the start.
Then came shearing. A gang arrives, charges by the head, and leaves a pile of fleeces. Clarkson sent the wool off and learned what every sheep farmer in Britain already knew. The fleece was worth less than the cost of taking it off the animal.
For 800 years that fleece was the wealth of England. It paid for the cathedrals and the wars. A sheep was kept for five or six years for her wool, and the mutton at the end was a bonus that fed the country.
Now the wool is a disposal problem, so the only thing a sheep can earn from is a lamb sold at five months. One income where there used to be three. Clarkson's flock lost money, and he said so on television.
The reason the fleece is worthless is in your wardrobe. The jumper is acrylic, the fleece jacket is polyester, the carpet is nylon, and all of them are made from oil.
Ellen could do everything a shepherd has had to do since the Bronze Age, and do it at three in the morning. The thing she could not do was compete with a plastics factory.
Check the label in your collar before you ask why British lamb costs what it costs.
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
If you weren’t concerned before you should be now !
Synthetic Folic Acid is manufactured by DSM Firmenich the same company that gave us Bovaer which was added to cattle feed to ‘reduce methane’ production.
Both products have been heavily supported by Bill Gates and the WEF.
Uncle Bill never did you any harm did he ??
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
The farm inheritance tax was sold as a tax on the richest estates. It found an ordinary family farm at the second funeral.
April 2026: the tax comes in. The news says only the biggest estates will pay. Dad and his son farm 800 acres. Nobody in the family has ever once called it an estate.
June: Dad dies. Everything passes to Mum, and nothing is owed. The neighbours say it was never meant for people like them.
Two winters later: Mum dies.
Week 1: the son milks at five, buries his mother at eleven, and milks again at four.
Week 3: the valuer walks the farm. 800 acres at the going rate is £6.8 million. With the farmhouse, two cottages, the machinery and the herd, nearly £8.5 million. The family has never seen £8.5 million. They have seen the overdraft.
Week 4: the good news. Mum inherited Dad's unused allowance, so £5 million of the farm passes free.
Week 5: the bad news. Everything above the line is taxed at 20%, and that is the good rate.
Week 6: HMRC argues the farmhouse stopped being a farmhouse the day the widow living in it stopped farming. That part is taxed at 40%.
Week 7: the allowance for the family home tapers to nothing. It was never designed for estates this size.
Month 3: the bill. Around £600,000.
Month 6: the first instalment falls due. The land cannot be sold until probate is granted, and probate will not be granted until the tax is paid.
Month 7: the bank lends the family the money to pay the tax on the land, secured on the land.
Years 1 to 10: £60,000 a year. Interest free on the farmland, with interest charged on the farmhouse.
Defra's own figures put the average farm's return at half a percent of its value. On £8.5 million, that is about £42,000 a year.
The cows are milked at five and four through every day of it.
It was never a tax on the rich. It is a tax on still being there.
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
We've reported Hackney Islamic Community Centre to the Charity Commission after it promoted "physical discipline" for "disobedient" wives, including those who refuse their husbands sex, and condoned the execution of gay people and accused 'witches':
secularism.org.uk/news/2026/…
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
Skin cancer is sold as a meter reading: more sun, more cancer. Melanoma has never once behaved that way.
If it were the dose, it would favour the face and hands. It favours the back and the legs.
If it were the dose, farmers, roofers and fishermen would lead the tables. Office workers do.
If it were the dose, Greece and southern Italy would top Europe. Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands do.
If it were the dose, a century of moving indoors would have emptied the clinics. It filled them.
If it were the dose, fifty years of sunscreen would have bent the curve. The curve went up alongside the sales.
If it were the dose, your great-grandfather, outside from dawn in a vest, should have been riddled with it. He'd never heard the word.
Something else moved, and it moved inside the skin. Over that same century the fat people are made of was swapped from butter, lard and dripping to seed oil, the most easily oxidised fat there is, and ultraviolet is an oxidiser.
The sun is the match. It has been the same match for four billion years.
We're the ones who changed what it lands on.
Annies ❤️🔥 retweeted
Elon’s advice to 20-year-olds on surviving the AI era:
Get as broad-based an education as possible: arts, sciences, engineering, and wide general knowledge.
Why?
AI and robots will fulfill almost any request immediately.The edge won’t be doing the work. It will be knowing what to ask for. The broader your knowledge, the better your questions.
(source: CGTN)
