tobyhowes

I know you're all tired of Brand because his conviction has been causing divided opinion amongst us but....... 1. The woman who accused Brand of anal rape will never have to face the shame of being named. Her family won't ever have to suffer the indignity of her face and name, or theirs, being exposed. Her parents won't ever have to face questions regarding their daughter's lack of morals, self-respect and common sense at the time. When a rape or sexual assault of an adult or a child is genuine, anonymity is what we all want and what we all 100% expect. But what about when it's not genuine, which accounts for approximately 2 to 4% if you believe Google's reliable. Why did this woman willingly go to his dressing room and engage in intimate sexual acts within minutes of meeting him? Why didn't she report the alleged assault immediately, both to seek justice for herself, and potentially to prevent other woman from experiencing the same dreadful ordeal that she has claimed to have experienced? If this woman decided to waive her anonymity, I think moral decline has sunk so low that she would, no-doubt, be treated like a "Queen" by some. Online pornography has a lot to answer for when it comes to moral decline. Back in the early 90's, we were introduced to the World Wide Web. By the mid 90's, we were witnessing the emergence of the "ladette subculture"- a time when young woman began moving away from traditional expectations of female behaviour and adopting behaviours traditionaly associated with men. That timing wasn't coincidental. Brand's accuser admits to everything else she did with him was consensual, with the exception of anal rape. Woman and men who irresponsibly put themselves into these very risky situations should take accountability for their own actions and poor judgement. That includes Brand & the women he chose to have sex with. Most of us have disliked Brand well before these allegations became public. My gripe isn't necessarily about Brands conviction, or if he's guilty. It's about the fact that these women say they consented to having sex with him, but waited years before going to the police to report their allegations. Many of the schoolgirls who were groomed/raped/trafficked by muslim men were ignored by the police, who sent them straight back to the men who were raping them. Think about that. I would like to see a law imposing a time limit on reporting *adult* sexual offences, It should be seriously debated and considered. Currently, there is no time limit for reporting adult sexual offences, meaning allegations can be reported decades after the events in question. A man could be in his 80s and still be reported for a sexual offence if an *adult* woman or man alleged he commited the assault when he was in his 20s. If this woman's and the other women's allegations are genuine, think about how many women might have been spared going through the same ordeal if they had all reported the sexual offences immediately, or even within a year, particular consideration should be given to the fact that we've been led to believe that Brand had sex with hundreds of women. Too many men think they can get away with a promiscuous lifestyle, and too many women think they are equal to men in every way. We are not. I've seen women brag about drinking men under the table. Comparing their tattoos with men's, wanting muscular bodies like men, using crude language and believing they're as physically strong as men. Women watch pornography too. Consumers of porn used to be predominantly male. Most women hated the top shelf in newsagents, let alone the video tapes, DVD's and online porn that followed. More importantly, some women think they can be just as promiscuous as men, while also believing they have the physical strength to fight them off if they don't take no for an answer. Promiscuous men like Brand, famous or not, are going to attract promiscuous women.

The managerial state has officially progressed from chronic dysfunction to terminal, hysterical insanity. Lisa Nandy spent her morning television slot announcing that the government is now seriously looking at banning under-16s from Vinted, eBay, and Depop. Think about the sheer, unhinged absurdity of that sentence: Whitehall’s grand strategy for child protection is deploying state apparatus to stop a fifteen-year-old from selling an old puffer jacket and a pair of trainers. The previous generation were navigating the physical world at fourteen: working Saturday paper rounds, budgeting their own money, meeting mates down the pub, and catching trains across the country without a GPS tracker tethered to their skull. Today, the administrative class has constructed a suffocating digital panopticon where young people cannot develop an ounce of financial independence, commercial literacy, or personal resilience without a civil servant demanding their biometric telemetry. The descent into full nanny-state authoritarianism is always bipartisan. The Conservatives spent five years drafting the lumbering Frankenstein known as the Online Safety Act, and Labour has taken that framework and weaponised it into a blanket ban on childhood agency. First it was social media bans for under-16s; then it was age-assurance regimes demanding facial estimation scans and credit card verification just to read an article online; now a teenager listing a second-hand hoodie on an e-commerce platform is officially treated as an unmanageable safeguarding hazard. Over 1.5 million young people in this country run small-scale circular-economy trades on platforms like Vinted and Depop, learning the basics of supply, postage, and commerce before they even sit their GCSEs. The bureaucratic solution to any potential risk is never policing actual criminals or holding platforms to basic moderation standards; it is a scorched-earth administrative prohibition that infantilises an entire generation until the day they turn eighteen. We are systematically raising a demographic hermetically sealed from real-world interaction, financial literacy, and basic human friction, and then expressing institutional bewilderment when twenty-somethings arrive in the workplace crippled by anxiety and entirely dependent on the state. If a British teenager cannot even be trusted to post an old coat via Evri without Whitehall requiring an age audit, we haven’t protected them. We have built an open-air nursery overseen by terrified bureaucrats who view the mere act of growing up as an intolerable administrative risk.

This is the UK government’s Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer larking around eating Thai snacks while riding a Tuk Tuk around Bangkok. And unfathomably, deciding it was a good idea to post about it on social media.

Wes Streeting: "If borders can be redrawn by force.. the consequence shall not be confined to Ukraine" The UK govt is arming a regime thats been occupying Palestine & part of Syria for decades, and which has recently invaded & occupied part of another neighbour.

The wonderful state of Zionist Israel and their great contribution to humanity! Here they are in the West Bank ripping out Palestinian olive trees, and destroying peoples’ livelihood.

If we were right about Gaza why don’t you impose an immediate and total arms embargo? British components continue to kill Palestinians! Until you do that this is just virtue signalling

Israel soldier brags about murdering an elderly deaf civilian who begged him to spare his life Soldiers burst out laughing & shake his hand! The Israeli army promised to "investigate" this incident 929 days ago & nothing ever happened after!

@annaturley I don’t normally call people out directly, but you speak regularly about the small boats and illegal migration. So here’s a genuine offer: Come and join me on the French coast and see it first-hand. I’ll cover your costs, drive you around and show you the locations I’ve spent weeks documenting. I’ll even extend my month-long trip to work around your diary. It’s very easy to talk about this issue from Westminster. Seeing it on the ground is something entirely different. My offer is genuine and it stands. Adrian

🚨Putin stated that Europe is pushing its countries toward war with Russia. ▶️ The West set the goal of dragging Ukraine into NATO after the bloody coup in Kyiv in 2014. ▶️ What is happening now in Europe is the result of systemic mistakes by Western globalists in politics, security, and economics. ▶️ Russia's participation in the "G8" was not a full membership for the Russian Federation. ▶️ After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western globalists felt that they could do anything, and the mistakes they made continue to accumulate and are still present today. 🚨During a press appearance, the Russian president, commenting on the results of the parliamentary elections in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt, said that the victory of Alternative for Germany was the result of systemic mistakes by Western globalists in the fields of politics, security, and economics. 🚨❗️In my view, all that is now happening across Europe as a whole is the consequence of systemic errors committed by the so‑called West, or, to be more precise, by the globalist circles of the West, in the political, security and economic spheres. Everyone is prone to mistakes. We, too, have made numerous mistakes, as has the wider world. Yet the difficulty for the globalist West lies here: following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, they perceived themselves as standing atop the “summit of Mount Olympus,” and evidently concluded that, firstly, they were permitted everything and, secondly, that they themselves were incapable of error. In the security sphere, it has taken the form of attempts to put pressure on the Russian Federation, initially through the use of terrorists in the Caucasus and separatists, then via other methods, and now – by means of the neo‑Nazi regime in Ukraine. This process continues unabated.

'I can't see anything dodgy... I actually welcome them very much!' GB News Presenter Michael Portillo defends two controversial donations to Reform UK by two crypto-billionaires, making up a combined £72 million, saying 'we need to fund our political parties'.

A man has been stabbed by a foreign national in Dublin today. Many witnesses have reported the scene, the gruesome result, details of the Irish victim and the foreign attacker. Unfortunately the main stream media are not highlighting this scene, and continue to deliberately omit the nationality of the attackers in fear of adding to the transparency of the crime element trend that is continually growing within the Country. More on this on Gael Force Media’s Irish Column Show this Sunday, Real News. #ireland #dublin

Ross Kemp filmed this in Ukraine years before Russian troops crossed the border in February 2022. Listen to the language used then: “a bitter civil war is raging”, pro-Russian separatists fighting Ukrainian forces, towns changing hands, civilians becoming refugees, and far-right militias such as Azov moving from the political fringes onto the battlefield. Kemp describes Ukraine as economically collapsing, politically unstable and already being torn apart by war. That history has almost vanished from the story we are now expected to accept. Russia’s 2022 invasion massively escalated the conflict . But pretending the war materialised from nowhere in February 2022 is historical amnesia. Ukraine had already been fighting since 2014, with Russian involvement, Western involvement, nationalist militias, foreign volunteers and an expanding military confrontation all feeding into the same furnace. And that matters because Britain is now building part of its industrial strategy around keeping that furnace supplied. Missiles. Drones. Submarines. Ammunition. Defence contracts. More weapons, more production, more billions. The danger is that war stops becoming a temporary emergency and becomes an economic model. Once jobs, factories, government spending and corporate profits depend upon permanent military demand, peace becomes commercially inconvenient. That is how a proxy conflict become a Forever War, not because ordinary Ukrainians or Russians want to fight forever, but because an entire political and industrial architecture has learned how to live from the continuation of war. The question we should be asking is not simply who started the latest phase? It is: who benefits if it never ends? #Ukraine #AndyBurnham

того ж вечора:

🚨NEWS: Labour's Lucy Powell has an absolute car crash of an interview over the leaflets telling migrants not to rape women Lucy doesn't know why they're being handed out, can't explain it and says the Government are doing a good job because asylum processing is quicker Absolute moron

Another new video shows Ukrainian man snatched from his car & woman thrown to the ground by press gang in Kropyvnytsky. Self-proclaimed supporters of Ukraine in fact support not Ukrainians but such illegal forced mobilization by Zelensky regime & proxy war to the last Ukrainian.

It’s probably worth saying at this point something I’ve said before, lest it gets lost in the sands of time and political rhetoric about immigration and illegal entry, and how we got to this point. I was an immigration officer in the 1970s and 1980s. The power to grant or refuse leave to enter was vested to me in law under the authority of a Chief Immigration Officer. Anyone arriving without a valid passport (and a visa if required) was refused entry at the border, detained, and removed on the next available ship or aircraft whence they came. This was under the Immigration Act 1971 (still In force although amended massively by successive governments ever since). It was some 20 - 30 years after the 1951 ECHR and the 1951 Refugee Convention was signed. Nobody claimed asylum. Nobody claimed human rights. No country refused to take people back. Those who had destroyed their passports were removed on a letter, signed by me. Fast forward 50 years and now anyone who arrives at the border without a passport or a visa automatically claims asylum or human rights. Immigration Officers of today (or Border Force Officers) are thereby disempowered to send them back before their asylum claims or human rights claims are considered. And their appeals are dismissed. They cannot be detained in the meantime because under the Hardial Singh principles immigration detention is only lawful if there is a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period of time. Which there isn’t of course. So the only option available to the officer is to grant temporary permission whilst these applications are considered. And if the applicant claims to be destitute they must be given support and accommodation at public expense. Because failure to do so would put the government in breach of A3 of the ECHR (inhuman and degrading treatment). And even if the applicant is eventually refused protection - and loses their appeal - we need to get a passport to remove them on. And they often refuse to comply with the documentation process. Even if they do many countries still refuse to issue them with a passport and refuse to take them back. And even after all this they can abscond and if ever caught start the whole process again. This is where we are and so far no government has been able to break the Gordian knot that ties the hands of our officers. In order to do that they would have to reverse decades of laws and judgements - and demur from long held well intentioned international conventions. And probably look at the British Constitution itself to curtail the opportunity of political opponents to use the courts to thwart the will of Parliament. This is not to criticise or favour any political party or policy. It is simply a matter of record to inform the next generation of politicians and the civil servants charged with the duty of implementing any new laws or policies they may introduce. And to ask why - if we did it back in my day - why can’t we do it now? I even wrote a book about it. I hope someone keeps a copy for posterity - or even history - when thinking about how to fix this seemingly intractable problem. amzn.eu/d/06wM4s2h

A cleaner found a 35 yr old Mars bar hidden in a hoarders house. [Picture below, notice anything] 1991: weight 65g, length 14 cm, width 3.1 cm, height 2 cm, price 25p 2026: weight 40g, length 9.5 cm, width: 2.5 cm, height: 1.5 cm, price £1.30 By weight '26 is 40/65g = 61.5% of '91. By price '26 is 130/25p =420% [5.2x] of '91. So this would mean, like for like, price per weight is 745% more expensive today. What then is the UK Mars bar index, annual implied Inflation rate over the last 35 years? Where Xw = the annual inflation factor compounded over 35 years by bar weight. To solve Xw: Xw = 5.2x [Greater cost] / 0.615 [Lesser product weight] reduced weight today = 8.45 x more expensive. 8.45 to the root 35 = 1.063; then reduce by 1; then x100 for inflation rate = 6.3% pa. This assumes NO substitution of ingredients, no fresh synthetic ingredients for padding out of the bars weight over the last 35 years*. HIGHLY UNLIKELY. *We return to this point on a by Volume basis lower down. Generally a substitution and a downgrade on ingredient quality has been a consistent norm in confectionary and food source quality over the years. Profits before quality trajectory. If the same comparison is done by volume: 1. Mars bar '91 volume in cubic centimetres [cc's] = 14cm length [l] x 3.1cm width [w] x 2cm height [h] = 86.8 cc's 2. Mars bar '26 = 9.5 l × 2.5 w x1.5 h = 35.625 cc's Percentage difference by volume is 86.8/35.625 cc's = the Mars bar of 1991 had 143.65% [×2.4365] more volume than 2026.  Or '26 is only 41% by volume of '91 Yet '26 is 61% of '91 by weight? If identical in ingredient mix, Mars Bar 2026 vintage should also be 41% by weight if 41% of the volume? It is NOT! This proves new ingredient mixes apply, in fact almost exactly 50% [61/41] heavier/denser per volume than the '91 ingredient mix. No doubt the substantial loss in volume, saw the possible 'marketing' need to 'pad the bar out' more densely, so it's 'heftyness' did not reduce as rapidly, as its steady reduction in volume (size). Therefore if we calculated the UK inflation rate based off the reduced volume [same mix of '91 vintage ingredients for both bars= Xv] rather than the reduced weight [Different mix of ingredients Xw], it would arguably be a more 'like for like' comparison. Mars Bar '91 is 2.4365x the volume of '26 vintage [0.41], yet '26 vintage is by price is 130/25p =420% [5.2x] of '91. Where Xv is the factor multiple more expensive by volume [like for like ingredients, '91 vs '26 vintages prices] Xv = 5.2x [Incr. price] / 0.41 [reduced volume today, like for like] = 12.68 x more expensive. So comparing per cc [centimetre cubed] of original mix '91 vintage, at todays prices, Mars Bar the '26 version, is 5.2 [more expensive] x 2.4365 [equate per similar volume adjustment] = 12.68x more expensive today like for like same ingredients. An Xv = 12.68x indicates the bar is 1168% more expensive today by volume, of like for like, ingredients [No longer available in the Mars bar version 2026, but based on the original 1991 Mars bar mix]. This puts the UK Mars Bar Index of averaged compounded inflation [Y] over 35 years at a whopping 7.57% per annum. Y = true annual inflation factor of Mars Bar. [y]*35 = 12.68 Y=12.681 root/35≈1.07527 Annual Mars Bar UK Implied inflation rate over the last 35 years is 7.53% pa. For comparison: your statist ONS [Office for National Statistics (ONS) — the UK’s national statistical institute] when examined for the declared inflation rate over the same 35 years, states it was 2.48% Using the 2025 annual average (138.4) over 34 years yields a very similar ~2.48%. CONCLUSIONS! 1. Mars bar 1991 vintage is NOT the same in almost every single way to Mars bar 2026 vintage. Including in ingredient make up. One can only assume cheaper, weightier/denser ingredients make up more of the bar than previously. This probably will lead to taste differences too. The maker may aim to reduce the shifting taste variation over time caused by consistent micro ingredient adjustments. A slow shift approach, may be the strategy to 'Mandela effect' away, any taste differentials over 35 years. 2. This is the most pure long term evidence of chronic 'shrinkflation' of any product, as presented as the British standard for confectionary. The bar is only 61.5% the weight, of the original, and even less by volume at 41% of the original. 3. If the different generations of bar were assumed to be equivalent by quality and ingredient to the 1991 vintage [They aren't]. It would make the Mars Bar index barometer of UK annual inflation, stand at a compounded average over the last 35 years, at 7.53% per annum. For those who might say Chocolate is a non-essential and a luxury item, I say the following, it is NOT a high end item, it is consumed by working and middle classes alike, with likely lower penetration at the high end, and is a regular snack staple well know throughout the UK.  #SHRINKFLATION A reminder in other 'unrelated' [?] UK news. Britain crossed 3 Trillion pounds in deficit. Basically at 100% to its GDP. However the Tax Payer Alliance says, add in unfunded liabilities, like: 1. Unfunded State & Public Sector Pensions 2. PFI Contracts [Public Funded Investments] 3. Nuclear waste clean up commitments ..and you get to add a further £8.6 Trn, Making a total of £12 Trn in debt. If you could pay off £1 Million every hour it would take 1334 years to settle. If the Debt was accepted with unfunded liabilities at 12 Trillion pounds, it would be a Debt to GDP ratio of 400% for the UK! Reminder the US plays this game too, supposedly 120% Debt to GDP, with unfunded liabilities added in a 550% Debt to GDP. IT IS A FIAT & DEBT BASED COLLAPSE! GOT GOLD? “Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending. Because that’s the true tax. If you’re not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, you’re paying for it in the form of inflation or borrowing.” - Milton Friedman @capitalcosm @sdbullion @MilesFranklinCo @PalisadesRadio @FT @ProfSteveKeen @ONS @MarsGlobal @shadowstats @bankofengland @silvertrade @WallStreetMav @BLS_gov @ShrinkflationWD @ukshrinkflation @TaxpayersUnion @Taxpayers_Ally @the_tpa @PeterSchiff @BigMacIndexCom @SilverDegen @Nostre_damus @MakeGoldGreat @IGWTreport @porterstansb

Hi @andyburnham I spoke today to a friend whose father had Alzheimer’s. He told me that last year the council was paying around £900 a week for carers to visit four times a day, providing a combined total of about two hours of care per day. That works out at approximately £64 per hour of delivered care to the agency. While many care workers providing the actual visits are paid around £16 per hour. For comparison, an experienced NHS Band 6 nurse earns around £20 per hour. Why are taxpayers paying such high rates to private care providers when the frontline workers themselves receive a much smaller proportion of the cost? Would a publicly provided model, with qualified nurses and care workers employed directly by the NHS or local authorities, provide better value and more consistent support, rather than relying on care agencies that often deliver short, offer fragmented visits, charge a fortune, and make extortionate profits?