The Oxford Union is one of the world’s oldest debating societies. Recently it needed police lines, road closures, boarded-up shops and a major security operation just to hold a debate. Just look at the scene outside. All this...for a debate.

The motion before the Oxford Union was simple enough:

“This House Believes the West is Right to Be Suspicious of Islam.”

Now many of you might agree with it. Or you might completely reject it.

Like me you might even think it didn’t go far enough.

But surely the thing is that we should still be able to debate it.

For me that was the real story of the evening.

It wasn’t just what was said inside the chamber, but also what was happening outside it.

We saw hundreds of protesters gather. Police kept rival groups apart. Businesses boarded up windows. One of the world’s oldest debating societies needed extraordinary protection simply to allow people to argue with one another.

I think that really should concern every one of us.

The Oxford Union itself has built its reputation by inviting controversial people to speak. Prime ministers, revolutionaries, dictators, extremists and political outcasts have all stood at its dispatch box. In more recent years it has hosted David Irving, Nick Griffin, Malcolm X, Gerry Adams, Yasser Arafat, Muammar Gaddafi, Katie Hopkins, Jordan Peterson, Kathleen Stock and Steve Bannon.

I like the fact that the principle couldn’t be simpler.

Let people speak, then challenge them and see if you can beat them in argument.

Somewhere along the way we’ve started to forget that.

“You Would Be Quite Literally Cooked”

There was one moment that summed up the evening better than anything else.

Student speaker Aisha Khan Aziz addressed Tommy Robinson and said:

“Stephen, there is a crowd outside rioting against you tonight, and without the protection and generosity of a Muslim Palestinian president and a largely South Asian executive committee, you would be quite literally cooked.”

Maybe she thought it was funny. Maybe she simply didn’t think about how it would sound. Either way, telling a speaker he would have been “quite literally cooked” without the protection of the organisers was an extraordinary thing to say. A debate asking whether the West has reason to be suspicious of Islam opened with a reminder that there was an angry crowd protesting against the debate outside and a suggestion of what might have happened without heavy security. It didn’t settle the argument.

But it certainly added another layer to it.

Let’s Stop Pretending These Are The Same Thing

Here’s the bit where too many people deliberately muddy the waters.

Those are not all the same thing.

We have to understand that criticising Islam is not the same as attacking Muslims and questioning Islamism is not the same as hating your Muslim neighbour.

That distinction really matters and conflating the elements is disingenuous!

We see that Christianity is criticised every day. The Church of England is mocked relentlessly. Judaism, atheism and every political ideology imaginable are challenged, ridiculed and picked apart.

So why should Islam be treated any differently? Not every criticism may be fair. But every criticism should be capable of being heard and answered. Islam, like every other belief system, has to remain open to scrutiny. Once any ideology becomes immune from criticism, it has already gained too much power.

The Protesters Made The Case

The protesters wanted to stop the debate but instead they strengthened the case for holding it. If the motion was wrong, defeat it. If Tommy Robinson was wrong, then expose his arguments. If Laurence Fox was wrong, show everyone why.

That’s how actual debate works.

Trying to stop people entering the building sends a very different message. It says to me that some ideas are simply too dangerous to hear. That isn’t confidence.

It’s fear.

Britain Is Becoming Afraid Of Difficult Conversations

People aren’t stupid, they notice what’s happening. They learn which subjects can be discussed openly and which ones attract instant outrage. So they stop saying what they really think. They keep those conversations for the pub, the kitchen table or WhatsApp groups.

That’s no way for a healthy democracy to work and that is why this debate mattered.

It asked a question that millions of people discuss privately but very few public institutions are prepared to examine openly. Whether the motion passed or failed almost doesn’t matter.

The fact it had to be surrounded by police does.

The Verdict

The reality is that Free speech isn’t tested when everyone agrees. It’s tested when people are offended. That’s exactly what the Oxford Debate was supposed to be about.

The good news is that the debate happened and that the audience listened politely for most of it.

But let’s not pretend everything is fine.

When it takes police lines, road closures and a major security operation simply to debate a religion, Britain should realise it has a problem.

The hard truth is that we’re losing the ability to separate criticism of ideas from hatred of people.

You can question Islam without hating Muslims, just as you can criticise Christianity without hating Christians. Without that distinction, honest debate dies.

The way I see it, the answer isn't fewer difficult conversations. It's more of them.

When a country becomes frightened of debating ideas, that is the moment those ideas stop being challenged. And history tells us that this has never ended well.

If you’ve enjoyed reading this, I’d love you to join the community.

I publish regular political analysis, overlooked history and the occasional book review that challenges the mainstream narrative.

Free subscribers receive every article. Paid members also receive The Saturday Briefing, my exclusive weekly analysis launching this September.

If that sounds like your sort of thing, come aboard.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Whereas most people in Europe have never even heard of Ceuta, I’m lucky enough to have been there. Granted, I was only seven at the time and I was on holiday in nearby Tangier with my parents. However, what made the day memorable was a small child’s cuckoo clock that my Dad bought me in a shop in the Plaza de Africa. I had that clock until well into my teens. So it is incredibly sad to see such a lovely place become the latest victim of Europe’s desire to be a landing strip for the Third World’s scumbags and criminals.

If anyone had any doubt that Europe was being invaded by incompatible people with criminal intent, that doubt should have been firmly dispelled by the disgraceful scenes we witnessed on our TV screens at the tail end of July. No less than 60,000 hysterical Arabs (and few can get more hysterical than that lot!) amassed on the border between Morocco and Ceuta, overwhelmed the border guards and local police force, and them ran amok in Ceuta itself shouting the usual “Alan’s snackbar” rubbish. In addition, they broke into homes, looted shops, started fires and stabbed various locals – one straight in the neck!

Why did this happen? Well, we all know the main political parties across both the UK and Continental Europe fellate the Satanic phallus of multiculturalism. Here, in the UK; in France; in Germany; in Ireland; in Sweden; in The Netherlands…..they all just can’t get enough of it. So keen is their desire to destroy the 1,000-year history of the Europe we used to know, that they throw down the welcome mats with the enthusiasm of the Green Men on the doors at a Harrods sale! Spain, under the thumb of a radical Left-wing Prime Minister whose party didn’t even secure the largest share of the vote, has gone still further!. Earlier this year, it proposed an amnesty to over 500,000 illegal migrants. There were protests in Madrid against this when I visited the city in February. Add in the recent Spanish Supreme Court ruling that said those arriving into Spanish territory via the sea couldn’t be deported, and you have the perfect storm. Many of those arriving illegally in Ceuta (and later Melilla) swam around the border fences with the aquatic dexterity of a bottlenose dolphin!

A predictably ignorant reaction from the British Left was that Ceuta and Melilla (250 miles further along the African coast) were ‘Spanish colonial possessions’. As somebody with paternal family roots in Northern Ireland, I am more than aware of this childish and simplistic notion that a patch of land separated from its mainland by water, but contiguous with another country, should somehow be part of that country. Forget history, identity, constitutional reality, political evolution and culture. In this case, forget the fact that Morocco didn’t even become a sovereign state until 1956, whereas Ceuta and Melilla were Spanish territories decades before even the Union of the Crowns between England and Scotland! In the eyes of those with a baby brain, they’re part of the Africa so should belong to Morocco. I have news for you: They shouldn’t!

Spain’s government could have had a permanent garrison of the Spanish Army patrolling the borders between these two cities and the Moroccan state. An Army battalion could have stopped this. Instead, tumbleweed. A small cluster of border guards and local police. Why? Because the Spanish government, like the aforesaid governments above, in essence no longer really believes in sovereign borders. In the European Union, they’ve had the precious notion of internal national boundaries proselytized out of them thanks to years of the Schengen Agreement. When I travelled by coach from London to Rome in August 1986, we experienced border checks between the United Kingdom and Belgium; Belgium and Luxembourg; Luxembourg and France; France and Switzerland; and finally Switzerland and Italy. Of the 36 hours the journey took, the border checks took no longer than a combination of about 100 minutes. I think that was a small sacrifice to make in order to keep Europe far more demographically and culturally homogenous that it is now. Tragically, and probably irreversibly, the majority of politicians across the European Union (and certainly in Britain) no longer concur with that analysis. Good for them. They’ll never have to live alongside, or experience the consequences of, a Europe with a flaccid southern flank and porous internal borders that attract legions of Islamic and African fighting-age men. As for the rest of us, we’ll just have to go on seeing streets lined with increasing numbers of anti-car-ramming barriers, restrictions on speech, efforts to hide the criminality of those our governments have imported, and every other negative that’s accompanied this 30-year Bogdanov experiment. For like that tragic Russian scientist, European governments are mixing bloods that should never have been mixed! Unlike Bogdanov, they don’t intend to perish as a result of what they’ve done. They find it far more spiriting to let us ordinary folk take the fall on their behalf!

We’re told now they’ve all gone home. Even that is a lie! Thousands remain, unwilling to go back to whence they came (copying millions of others throughout western Europe, by the way). The demographic transformation of this continent is being fast tracked, and you can be certain more than a few of those who arrived in Ceuta will, at some point, be seen on inflatable dinghies heading for the Kent coast at Folkestone. The demise of our nations, history and culture can’t come soon enough for those who lead us. I see the likes of Burnham, Macron, Sanchez, Merz et al as human wrecking balls – determined to smash every building block of what makes us British, French, Spanish or German respectively. When I think of the centuries of rich European history and what remarkable achievements the various countries of this continent have made, I weep for the future these monsters have in store for us. But I experience only sadness, not anger. For to have anger is to believe that something is still worth fighting for. Alas, the electoral experiences of Makerfield, Manchester, Gorton and Denton have taught me enough people in this country are basically no longer deserving of such efforts.

My thanks to Andy Mac for contributing today’s guest column.

I occasionally publish guest essays from writers whose perspectives I believe deserve a wider audience. While contributors express their own views, I hope they encourage thoughtful discussion. If you enjoy a mix of original analysis and carefully chosen guest contributors, I'd love you to subscribe!

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

Politics has never been about agreeing on everything. If it were, no political party would ever exist. It's about getting enough people moving in the same direction to change the country.

That is why Rupert Lowe's recent offer to work with Reform UK is worth taking seriously. Yes, he attached conditions. Yes, there are obvious personal differences between him and Nigel Farage. But at least the conversation has shifted away from just personalities and towards something much bigger. That has to be something that we can welcome!

Can the British Right finally learn to work together?

We’ve all heard the old saying that victory has many fathers while defeat is an orphan. Looking at the history of the British Right, I’d suggest another saying deserves to be added.

That danger feels very real today.

Labour’s revival under Andy Burnham is precisely why this debate matters. If the Right spends the next few years arguing with itself, it risks squandering what should be one of the greatest political opportunities in a generation.

The Conservatives remain a shadow of what they once were. Reform UK has indisputably emerged as the dominant force outside the old political establishment.

And yet, just as that opportunity appears, bang on cue, familiar cracks begin to show.

Restore Britain was launched because many people believed there was room for another stronger movement on the Right. Some wanted something more democratic than the perceived authoritarianism of Farage. Others wanted something more radical. Others simply felt Reform wasn’t enough.

Now I understand those ambitions and have sympathy with them .

However the hard truth is that politics isn’t just about good intentions.

It’s about whether you can persuade millions of voters.

Reform Is the Main Player Whether you admire Nigel Farage or can’t stand him, one fact is impossible to ignore.

Reform UK is now the biggest political force on the British Right.

The local elections on May 7th proved that beyond any serious doubt.

Farage has spent the best part of thirty years building his reputation. I first met Nigel Farage back in 1999. Whatever people think of him today, he's spent over a quarter of a century building his public profile. That sort of recognition can't simply be replicated overnight. All of that gives Reform something no rival currently possesses.

Momentum.

Which is why any movement setting out to replace Reform faces an enormous uphill struggle.

Catherine Blaiklock’s Experience

That brings me to my recent interview with Catherine Blaiklock. You can watch it here!

Having been involved with Restore Britain she offers an insider’s account of why she eventually decided to walk away. Readers will make up their own minds about her conclusions. But I think it’s fair to say that first-hand experience matter?

Political movements rarely collapse because they run out of ideas. More often they struggle because of organisation, leadership, trust and personalities. I speak from experience on this!!

Restore Britain’s challenges should be a lesson for anyone thinking politics is simply a matter of launching another party. Building a credible political movement is incredibly difficult. The fact that Rupert Lowe has already attracted significant attention underlines that.

The Left Doesn’t Make This Mistake

Here’s something I’ve noticed. The Left can disagree violently with itself.

Labour argues with the Greens. The Greens argue with the Liberal Democrats. Trade unions fall out with Labour ministers.

Yet when an election approaches, they often find ways of working together where it suits them. We’ve seen evidence of that in places like Gorton and Denton and Makerfield.

Their activists understand something that many on the Right still seem reluctant to accept. Winning is what matters.

Nobody hands out trophies for coming second with the purest principles.

Too often the Right has behaved as though complete agreement is a condition for cooperation but politics simply doesn’t work like that.

Time Isn’t Standing Still

There is another reason this matters and it is obvious to us all.

Britain is changing. Mass immigration, changing demographics and cultural change are reshaping the country. Many on the political Left welcome those developments, while many on the Right see them very differently. Reform and Restore supporters believe those changes have gone too far and that successive governments have failed to respond. I happen to agree with them.

If you genuinely believe Britain is moving in the wrong direction, then surely the last thing you should want is another split among people broadly trying to achieve the same objective.

Rupert Lowe’s Intervention

That is why Rupert Lowe’s comments matter. He’s made it clear that he still has disagreements with Nigel Farage. Nobody is pretending otherwise. But he has also made it clear that cooperation may be possible.

Personally, I think that is a far more interesting conversation than another round of social media point-scoring. Our electoral system is brutally unforgiving.and if you split the vote someone else usually walks away with the prize.

One thing that we can all agree on is that Farage understands elections. Lowe understands business, organisation and many of the frustrations felt by grassroots activists. Catherine Blaiklock has highlighted what can happen when a new political movement struggles to find its feet.

Those aren’t competing stories. and together they point towards the same question.

The Real Test

History won't remember who won the latest argument on X. It will remember who governed Britain when the opportunity finally arrived. It definitely won’t be decided by press releases or personality clashes either.

It will be decided by whether people who broadly agree on Britain’s direction can put enough trust in one another to work together.

Donald Trump’s victories in 2016 and again in 2024 demonstrated the importance of assembling a broad electoral coalition, even among supporters with differing priorities and viewpoints.

The lesson seems obvious.

Politics isn’t won by finding perfect allies. It’s won by building large enough coalitions to secure power.

That is what the Reform–Restore debate should really be about.

Not Nigel Farage. Not Rupert Lowe.

But whether the British Right can avoid repeating a mistake it has made far too many times before. Because if it can’t, Labour may not have to defeat the Right at the next General Election.

The Right may simply do the job for them.

If this article made you think, you’ll probably enjoy my other work.

I publish original political analysis, overlooked history and book reviews that challenge the mainstream narrative.

Free subscribers receive my regular articles.

Paid members also receive The Saturday Briefing—my exclusive weekly analysis launching this September.

Join thousands of independent-minded readers by subscribing today.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

She was still on the phone talking about it the week she was killed.

Fathers ruined. Homes gone. Men looking at jail seances over financial numbers they were never allowed to properly challenge. Ann Widdecombe said that the Child Maintenance Service was a bigger scandal than the Post Office. Suicides. Bankruptcies. Wrecked lives. She’d been saying it for years. Still saying it at the end.

Her view was blunt:

“The child maintenance service is mafia.”

I went through the same source stuff she was looking at. National Audit Office accounts — £3.798 billion in inherited CSA arrears. FOI replies showing 4,959 paying-parent deaths between 2020 and 2022. Thousands of cases where money got taken from one parent and never reached the kids. It’s all there. Black and white.

That £3.798 billion is the real starting point in this discussion. A big chunk of it was never real. Wrong income figures. Outdated arrangements. Basic administrative errors. Once it was on the books the system just wouldn’t let go.

Then there is the legal trap which is called Section 33 of the Child Support Act. What happens here is that the Agency applies to the Court for a liability order. The Court isn’t allowed to even check if the calculation produced is actually wrong. That’s the law. Hearings can be over in a few minutes. Hundreds of these orders are stamped in a day. After that the enforcement starts. Money gets lifted straight out of bank accounts. Driving licences get threatened and the full weight of the State bears down on people who still can’t properly fight the figures.

Ann called it a national scandal and once again she was right. Once that order is made, you’re cooked. She put it like this:

“In short, the citizen has no redress, a situation at odds with the laws of natural justice and indeed Magna Carta itself.”

The human cost is difficult to comprehend. Nearly 5,000 paying parents dead in two years. Roughly 2,500 a year. That’s way above the national average for that age group. If we focus on the ones already in arrears and it gets even worse. Five deaths a day according to some analysis. The Department says there is no proven link to suicide. It also says they don’t collect the data properly. Yet the pattern is still there as are the families who watched loved ones fall apart.

Operational failures continue to happen. One year: 24,500 cases where money was taken from the paying parent and never handed over. £4.2 million that never reached the children. Incredibly the debt on the system often just sits there or goes up because of fees.

Ann never moved on her demands. She wanted a full statutory inquiry with real powers. She insisted on a proper look at the legacy debt and a review of Section 33. She also wanted honest numbers on the deaths involved and real scrutiny of the money that vanishes.

Ann Widdecombe was still making that case when she was murdered. Police say no political motive and that speculation helps no one. What’s clear is that one of the few people with a proper platform who refused to look away on this is now gone.

The Child Maintenance System was meant to get money to children. Most people can get agree with that. However what exists instead is colder. Debt you can’t properly challenge. Heavy enforcement. A body count the authorities would rather not examine.

Ann spent the last part of her public life refusing to drop this issue.

A Full public inquiry is the minimum needed here. Anything less that insults the families damaged by this wicked system. And it insults the woman who kept fighting for them until the end.

So give her something that lasts.

Widdecombe’s Law: the legal right to properly challenge a Section 33 liability order in court. No more rubber-stamping. No more trapping people under figures they’re not allowed to contest.

If we’re serious, start there.

If this article made you think, you’ll probably enjoy my other work.

I publish original political analysis, overlooked history and book reviews that challenge the mainstream narrative.

Free subscribers receive my regular articles.

Paid members also receive The Saturday Briefing—my exclusive weekly analysis launching this September.

Join thousands of independent-minded readers by subscribing today.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

What if I told you that Marxism has deep roots in Satanism? Would you be surprised? Is it possible that an ideology which has captured the minds of millions of people around the world has an origin story rooted in deep evil?

I recently read Richard Wurmbrand's fascinating book, Karl Marx and the Satanic Roots of Communism. It isn't an easy read and nor was it intended to be. Wurmbrand wrote it after spending fourteen years in Romanian Communist prisons. Unlike many modern academics who analyse Communism from their ivory towers, Wurmbrand experienced it at its most brutal - in a prison cell.

One of the first things Wurmbrand talks about is something that may surprise many people. Karl Marx did not begin life as an atheist. He was raised in a Christian home and his early school essays reveal someone who understood Christian teaching well. He explicitly wrote about finding comfort in Christ, about serving others selflessly, and about the believer’s relationship with God.

Then, according to Wurmbrand, everything changed.

Marx’s later poems strike an entirely different note. They are filled with a bitterness, a darkness and open defiance of God. In one, Marx declares,

“I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.”

In another, he describes a soul once devoted to God but now “chosen for hell.”

Whose soul was that, I wonder?

Wurmbrand argues that these are not isolated literary flourishes but rather clear evidence of a profound spiritual rebellion. Marx no longer appeared merely indifferent to Christianity; he was openly hostile towards it.

Marx also wrote a student play entitled Oulanem.

Wurmbrand points out that the title is an anagram of Emmanuel, one of the Bible's names for Jesus, written backwards. In occult traditions, reversing sacred names carries symbolic significance. Marx was only nineteen at this point.

The play itself is bleak. Its central figure longs to drag humanity into destruction before following them into the abyss himself. Elsewhere, Marx wrote of receiving a sword from “the prince of darkness.” Wurmbrand stops short of suggesting Marx literally entered into some formal pact with Satan but something had changed. Instead, he argues that the recurring imagery, together with Marx’s increasingly hostile language towards God, reveals a deliberate rejection of Christianity.

Of course Marx wasn’t the only one expressing these ideas. Wurmbrand notes that several of his closest associates embraced similarly provocative themes. Mikhail Bakunin praised Satan as history’s first rebel and champion of freedom. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon described God in deeply contemptuous terms, while Marx himself repeatedly expressed hatred for all religion.

Interestingly, Wurmbrand contrasts Marx’s public concern for the working classes with remarks in his private correspondence that often appeared dismissive or contemptuous. Added to this was a deeply troubled personal life marked by financial chaos and family tragedy. Two of his daughters committed suicide, as did a son-in-law. Not exactly a happy family.

From there, the book moves beyond Marx himself to examine Communism as a whole.

Wurmbrand argues that Communist ideology functioned as a substitute religion.

It possessed its own sacred texts, unquestionable authorities, rituals and demands for absolute loyalty. To many believers it became more than just a political movement; it became a faith that demanded absolute obedience. It’s hard not to see the almost messianic zeal that typifies some converts to Communism even these days

At the same time, it sought relentlessly to eradicate genuine religious belief. Churches were closed, converted into museums, even destroyed. Clergy and ordinary believers faced imprisonment, persecution and execution. In some Communist states, children were encouraged to ridicule Christianity or reject it entirely. Wurmbrand cites a Soviet publication that admitted the ultimate objective was not simply opposition to organised religion but opposition to God Himself.

I think that is the key point to understand about both Marx and Communism.

Wurmbrand writes as a Christian pastor who watched his friends suffer and die, and who endured years of imprisonment because of his own faith. His purpose is clear; to persuade Christians that Marxism cannot be separated from its deeper spiritual foundations. If its origins lie in rebellion against God, he argues, then hostility towards Christianity is not an unfortunate side effect but an inevitable consequence. In fact, Wurmbrand argues;

hostility towards Christianity is not a by-product of Communism. It is one of its defining features.

The questions that Wurmbrand raises are not easily ignored. Why did so many Communist governments devote such extraordinary effort to suppressing Christianity? Why did opposition to God become such a recurring feature of regimes that claimed to be concerned only with economics and social justice?

Wurmbrand closes by presenting us with a stark choice. One road leads away from God, towards the destruction symbolised in Marx’s own writings. The other leads towards Christ. His final message is very straightforward: ideas matter. They shape our societies, influence governments and they impact on our individual lives. Understanding where those ideas come from, he believes, is essential if we are to understand where they may ultimately lead.

These days, Karl Marx is often presented as little more than an economist or political philosopher whose ideas were later abused by dictators. Wurmbrand completely rejects that interpretation. He argues that Marx’s hostility towards Christianity wasn’t incidental—it was foundational.

There is one historical fact that is difficult to ignore.

Wherever Communism gained absolute power, Christianity became an enemy to be suppressed. Churches were closed. Clergy imprisoned. Believers persecuted.

For me, that raises an uncomfortable question. If Communism consistently wages war against Christianity, can the two ever truly coexist? History suggests that you can embrace Communism, or you can embrace Christianity—but ultimately, you cannot embrace both.

If this article made you think, you’ll probably enjoy my other work.

I publish original political analysis, overlooked history and book reviews that challenge the mainstream narrative.

Free subscribers receive my regular articles.

Paid members also receive The Saturday Briefing—my exclusive weekly analysis launching this September.

Join thousands of independent-minded readers by subscribing today.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

THE SATURDAY BRIEFING

Launching September 2026

Politics explained. Not just reported.

Every Saturday morning, The Saturday Briefing will bring members my flagship analysis of the week's most important political developments..

Not the headlines you’ve already seen.

The analysis you haven’t.

Each edition will answer four questions:

• What happened?

• Why does it matter?

• What did the media miss?

• What happens next?

I hope you'll join me as we build something genuinely different.

The Saturday Briefing launches this September and will be available exclusively to members of The David Vance Briefing.

Issue No.1

Coming in September

• Is Britain becoming ungovernable?

• What the media still doesn’t understand about Reform UK.

• Three stories you may have missed.

• What happens next?

This is the next step in the evolution of The David Vance Briefing—and I can't wait to share the first edition with you.

This image quotes the lyrics from the XTC 1979 song “Making Plans for Nigel” and has an image of a guillotine underneath it. It does not state Nigel Farage, but that is a likely implication. It’s tasteless and you can imagine how Farage would have felt when he saw it. His colleague had been murdered and now the Green Party Leader Zack Polanski was reposting a veiled threat to his life. The Police were invited to investigate this repost as it seems full of murderous hate.

Polanski refused to apologise claiming it was just an “honest mistake” and the media seemed less than enthusiastic to pursue him on the matter. Even worse, the Met Police DID investigate it and concluded that there was no offence and could you please just move along. Nothing to see. As you were.

That’s what really alarms me. In August 2024, the police were going around arresting people for imprudent social media posts in the shocked aftermath of the Southport killings and people were sent to PRISON for less inciteful comment than the image shown above. What has changed?

I believe that the Labour Government wanted to crack down on those blaming migrants for the Southport killings and so a message was sent. “Don’t you DARE say anything unhelpful about migrants” was the unspoken rule. Things have now changed and the Government seems relaxed about Party Leaders reposting murderous threats about Nigel Farage. A cynic might think they would not be unhappy if he were killed. Consider how Government denied Farage the security he needs to cope with daily death threats and ask WHY would they take that view?

There are plenty of lunatics out there who can pick up on crude political messages such as the one shown on that t-shirt and perhaps think they should act on it. De-humanising people by claiming they are “fascists” and “as bad as Hitler” simply stokes the fires of these fanatics. Just reflect on some of these comments;

Former Labour Sir Keir Starmer described Reform’s politics, which he directly associates with Farage, as: “the biggest threat we face because it attacks who we are” and “the politics of grievance.” He also pledged to “fight Reform with everything that this movement has.”

Yvette Cooper (then Foreign Secretary) has repeatedly framed Farage’s approach as:“divisive” and not fit to handle scrutiny, positioning him as a threat to social cohesion.

Angela Rayner (then Deputy PM) warned that Farage and Reform harvest “anger, frustration, and resentment” and offer something “far more toxic”, while also highlighting that Farage “voted against new rights for workers – every step of the way

The demonisation is clear and it all creates an unholy chorus that suggests that IF Reform under Farage was to actually WIN the next General Election then the country will fall into some sort of dystopian tyranny. The shorter take on that? Get Farage now.

When the Police then refuse to act on something as dangerous as the “Making Plans for Nigel” guillotine threat we can but sympathise with Mr Farage. He must reasonably fear for his very life in the febrile swamp of British politics 2026.

I came across the far left outlet The Canary mocking Farage…

Floundering Nigel Farage has set the police on Green leader Zack Polanski for accepting an Instagram collaboration invite on an Instagram post. One of some twenty images in the post showed a protester wearing a t-shirt showing a guillotine with the wording “We’re only making plans for Nigel”. Obvious political satire, but Farage and the right-wing media are clutching their pearls over the supposed death threat.

It’s was just a JOKE, get it? Haven’t you got a sense of humour? Perhaps Nigel can wear that t-shirt when he visits Ann’s grave?

No, the only “joke: is how political violence is being normalised so long as it is one political direction. The left in the UK are increasingly as deranged as the left in the US.

It’s almost as if they think that murdering political rivals is acceptable if it gets them what they want.

If this kind of no‑spin take on what’s happening in British politics is useful to you, consider subscribing on Substack. I’m trying my best to build a space where we can say the uncomfortable things out loud, connect the dots and not pretend the official line is always the sane one. Free posts will keep coming, but paid subscribers directly fund the time it takes to research, write and push back against the mainstream narrative. If you want more of this, hit subscribe now

Subscribe now

Please share my work if you think it’s worth a share

Share

Leave me your thoughts on what I have written

Leave a comment

For starters, is it possible that the alleged suspect, Joshua Kerry, left his home on that fateful Wednesday morning in Byrley Road in Rotherham and drove to Ann’s house at Haytor Vale on the eastern edge of Dartmoor to arrive around 12.30? The Police believe that this is the approximate time that the murder was committed.

I asked AI to consider that specific journey at that time on that particular morning and it suggested that that it would take more like 5-5.5 hours! That does not allow for a refreshment break or refuelling.

Arriving by 12:30 would require essentially perfect free-flow conditions with no delays—possible on a quiet day but not reliable for peak-time midweek.

This seems to coincide with the experience of some of my readers who have done similar transits and the punchline is that is is extremely unlikely that anyone could travel that distance in the time that is suggested.

Now, there is the possibility that the timestamp in the above image is wrong and that the suspect left earlier. AI has suggested 6.30am-7am as a more realistic departure time. But the timestamp says 7.51am and that raises big questions, if true.

Of course the Counter terrorism police have indicated that they have CCTV footage of the suspect arriving, potentially of the actual 2 minute killing. But then that raises the uncomfortable question - WHO exactly was the alleged killer?

This is the first image the world saw of Joshua Kerry. It was taken in 2022 as far as I can best understand . It shows him at his place of work.

However, this is the quite the image of the man who got into the Red Corsa car.

Again, I asked AI to compare the two images, seeking clarity.

Here is the response;

No, these do not appear to be the same person.The two photos show clear, consistent differences that go beyond temporary changes like weight, clothing, or a haircut

While extreme weight gain, a dramatic haircut/shave, and other changes could theoretically alter someone’s appearance a lot, the core facial structure, proportions, and overall look here don’t line up closely enough to suggest it’s the same individual.

So once again, AI is indicating a core problem with the official narrative. AI could be wrong of course. But then again…..

There is a further interesting image of the suspect being driven from court.

Is this the same guy? I don’t know, but the physical changes do seem quite remarkable. I wonder what you make of this? We know from other high profile cases like that of Axel Rudakubuna that initial images shared of suspects can be misleading, whether this is by intent is a matter of some conjecture.

Once again I asked AI if the image of the man getting into the Corsa on that fateful morning is similar to the man being driven from Court.

It is possible in theory, but it appears unlikely based on the visible details.

Here’s a direct comparison of the two photos:

Facial hair: The man in the car has a distinctive, full reddish-brown mustache (somewhat thick/drooping) connected to a chin beard and sideburns. The shirtless man shows little to no matching mustache or structured beard in the available angle and lighting—his lower face looks smoother or at most lightly stubbled.

Face shape and features: The car photo shows a more defined, medium-build face (jawline visible under the beard, average nose tip). The shirtless man has a fuller, rounder face consistent with higher body fat.

Hair: Both have short brown hair, but the shirtless man’s is clearly curly/wavy; the car man’s hair is mostly obscured by the visor/mirror, so this isn’t decisive.

Body: The car man’s visible shoulder, neck, and arm (in a grey sweatshirt) look average. The shirtless man is significantly heavier, with a large belly and chest.

And what’s really weird about that is that these images are just a few weeks apart.

I am sure we all hope that justice is done and that whoever carried out the act is held responsible but it’s reasonable that we consider these matters rather than just blandly accept all we are told.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I think that we need to be very careful not to underestimate the guile of new Labour Leader and Prime minister Andy Burnham. In this article, I want to lay out the very real dangers that Burnham represents and why Nigel Farage should be very concerned.

Let’s start with Makerfield. Yes, Burnham was cynically parachuted into running for the seat and I recall more than a few pundits felt that it would be a very tight thing between him and Reform. I was one of them! But the truth of the matter was that Burnham was the easy victor with 55% of the vote and that was an increase in the 2024 General Election win. I think that Burnham ran a skilled campaign, avoiding media scrutiny to a large degree and playing up on his time as Manchester Mayor. The truth is Reform performed well enough but never ever came close to victory. That’s ominous.

No sooner does Burnham win Makerfield, but Starmer meekly steps down to allow Burnham to seize the leadership, uncontested! If you look back at the dates, it has happened at a very past pace. Burnham won Makerfield on the 18th June and he became Prime Minister on the 20th July. In terms of a bloodless coup, that’s remarkable and it shows that Labour is capable of accepting the need to change if it is to stay in power.

We all understood that Starmer was a very poor Prime Minister. We also understood that if Labour stuck with him, they most likely faced a wipe out come the next General Election. Here’s the thing - Labour understood that too. The May 7th election results were catastrophic for Labour and they seemed to recognise the urgency to bring change. So despite having won the 2024 with a whopping majority, Starmer was unceremoniously bungled out the door to create space for Burnham. His feet barely hit the floor. The consummate technocrat with no obvious human touch was gone, and Andy Burnham, the self styled “King of the North” arrived as his new replacement.

Burnham is DIFFERENT from Starmer and very quickly we saw a purge of many of the Starmerites. Reeves, Lammy, Kendall, Kyle, Reeves, even little Darren Jones, if you were identified as close to Starmer, you were gone. There was a ruthlessness about this which still has to play out as it may well have created tensions in some parts of the Labour machine but the truth is Burnham wants his regime to have a new face, a new image.

So in comes a brand new crew but yet many seem quite familiar! The most senior was was former Defence Secretary John Healey, who came Chancellor. Swivel eyed eco look Ed Miliband became Foreign Secretary. Shabana Mahmood stayed on as Home Secretary, with Yvette Cooper moving to Health Secretary. Then there is Wes Streeting, who dreamed of being Leader himself except he hadn’t the votes, who became Defence Secretary. Convicted fraudster. Louise Haigh, who resigned from the Starmer regime, is now First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The red queen herself, Angela Rayner, who had been forced to resign as Housing Secretary under Starmer is back as, yes, Housing Minister. This is team Burnham and it has a curious look about it - it is a re-brand of some of the most dodgy elements of Starmer’s regime, given a lick of paint and positioned as the new more NORTHERN alternative! The signal to the former red wall Labour voters is obvious and just to underline this, Number Ten NORTH was unveiled.

Now I didn’t realise that Manchester was exactly “North” - check out a map for further clarity - but Burnham seems proud that he now has a Power Base in Manchester and in London. In fact to underline line the “Northerness” to the new regime, he is allowing Rayner, Lucy Powell and Louis Haigh to work from there, rather than Downing Street.

He himself will spend at least a day a week there and he seems intent to turn Manchester into a national power base. The fact that this vanity project most likely doubles security costs and other overheads is incidental to Burnham, this is about image and about reaching out to voters in these areas. One quick test of this outreach is going to in a few days time when Manchester goes to the polls to elect Burnham’s successor as Mayor. I predict that Bev Craig, the Labour candidate, will romp home. I don’t think that Reform will come close and just as in Makerfield, there will be some soul searching amongst Reform ranks. Is losing to Labour in the north the new norm?

And talking of “normal”, Burnham has spent his first pushing out short little snappy videos that accentuate just how “normal” he is. Or so he wants you to believee. Look at this video he put out of him and the Chancellor John Healy in the pub comparing pub snacks! It’s like a “Pete and Dud” sketch but without the humour!

Burnham also likes to present himself as a bit of Dad DJ….this was posted on the official Labour TikTok…

Yes, I know we all think this is cringe but it’s also a very deliberate comms strategy.

His team are working flat out to make him appear “relatable” “one of us” - the proverbial everyman Prime Minister.

And THAT is the threat to Nigel Farage.

You see over the years, Farage has also carefully crafted an image of someone who enjoys a pint down his local pub. Maybe he does, maybe its all show, but it is very much core to Brand Farage.

Burnham is going to give Farage a run for his money if he continues with this “normalisation” strategy. The Manchester accent helps Burnham seem down to earth and even though it is ALL AN ACT, it’s one that Reform are going to have to work really hard to overcome.

After a week in power, and with this carefully curated media blitz, here is what at least one opinion poll is saying.

Reform have a problem and it is delusional to pretend otherwise. Given that Farage himself is caught up in the Clacton by-election and all the financial investigations into Reform finance, it seems to me that it is likely Labour will hold a clear lead by the Autumn. There will be an ecstatic Labour Conference as the King of the North is anointed to his adoring fans. (aka MPs desperate to keep their jobs)

Burnham has explicitly ruled OUT an early election in 2026. But what about next year? Just imagine that the Autumn Budget has enough sweeteners in it to keep the masses happy, he gets to May 2027 and he calls a snap election then. Could he then storm to a majority and 5 year rule? He has, after all, talked about the need for a TEN YEAR plan, as indeed did Starmer!

I’m not saying any of what I have written is inevitable. I am saying that underestimating Burnham would be a fatal mistake for Reform and Farage.

Do you agree?

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

There’s been a lot of outrage over the news that Axel Rudakabuna, the convicted killer of the three little girls in Southport back in summer 2024, has been transferred from the relative austerity of HMP Belmarsh to the relative opulence of Broadmoor psychiatric prison. In essence he will now be treated as a PATIENT, not a PRISONER.

But why are we remotely surprised that one of the very worst and most depraved killers that we have even seen is to be de facto rewarded by the Prison system? I mean he was sentenced to a minimum 52 years in prison so they cannot really give him an early release so this is the next best thing, reclassify him and move him out of the Prison Estate.

Rudakabuna can now look forward to a university style room, access to a gym, a modern cafe and TV. It’s said he can even rack up “treats” for good behaviour. He can even have access to a hairdresser and a dentist. Lucky old Axel, right? Sadly the families he bereaved have no such comfort.

Sensitive to the criticism this move has sparked, the Justice Department (Irony klaxon!) insists that he will be monitored 24/7 and there will be strict security. I read that Broadmoor also holds the Stockwell Strangler Kenneth Erskin and cannibal Peter Bryan. So he is now amongst kindred spirits and that is precisely the core problem here.

Rudakubuna should have been transferred from HMP Belmarsh to the gallows. For that matter, so should Erskin and Bryan. The decision made by the political establishment elite to remove the Death Penalty was not just cowardly but it also denies justice. The ONLY proper response to these convictions is the gallows. Anything short of that is injustice. Rudakubuna serves no useful function alive, in fact his incarceration simply costs the taxpayer and extends his workless life. There are certain crimes that I believe require the Death Penalty and killing three little girls is one such. Is there anybody reading this who looks at this image, knowing what happened to them, without your heart breaking?

When Rudakabuna killed this girls, our country exploded in rage. We ALL knew it was a truly terrible event and you might recall how the media tried to gaslight us into thinking Rudakabuna was just.a Welsh choirboy

It was only when he appeared in Court that we got to see the demonic figure that he really had become. His crimes warranted that he forfeit his life and if this country had any backbone left, he should have been off the gallows. What GOOD does it to to keep him alive. He may well be a deeply disturbed individual, but I don't care. He was convicted of carrying out the most atrocious crime and that is where the matter should conclude. Justice demands that he dies, not that he is placed in a pretty plush mental hospital to be taken great care of for the rest of his life!

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

We all have to die one day, and it is comforting to think that it will be a gentle going off into an eternal night. That is not what happened to 78 year old Ann Widdecombe. No, this poor soul was hit on the head with a hammer 21 times at her home as she ate lunch in an attack that was caught on camera, prosecutors have told Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

The Prosecutor Kashif Malik said the man charged with her murder, Joshua Kerry, arrived at her house on 8th July in a red Vauxhall Corsa and entered through the front door. Presumably it was unlocked? Kerry, who prosecutors say was in the property for just two minutes and was wearing black gloves, then allegedly hit Widdecombe repeatedly with a hammer in her kitchen, tipped her from her chair and took her wallet before driving off.

My god. 21 times, in 2 minutes.

What sort of MONSTER would do such a thing? This was a frenzied killing. The 28-year-old from South Yorkshire later also appeared at the Old Bailey and was then remanded in custody. At the Old Bailey hearing, prosecutor Alistair Richardson said the attack on Widdecombe had been carried out with a “ferocity of violence”.

Malik told the court that Widdecombe did not attend a pre-arranged online interview with Channel 5’s Matt Allwright show that had been scheduled for just before 1pm on 8th July. So the suggestion is that she was killed sometime just before that. The show’s production team tried to contact Widdecombe through her personal assistant, who then asked Widdecombe’s gardener to check on her, the court heard. Prosecutors said that the gardener entered the house via the open front door on 9th July and found Widdecombe lying face down on her kitchen floor with a serious head injury.

Dead.

What sort of hatred would motivate someone to carry out such a savage act and where would it come from? Political figures like Widdecombe and Farage have been long demonised in the UK media by figures including former PM Starmer; they have been frequently and repeatedly characterised as “nazis”, “far right” and “fascists”. This is where the unfiltered discourse has REAL life consequences, because when such loose language is deployed there is always some nutter out there who will believe it.

And then act on it.

In this case, the Prosecution offers us a very disturbing story. A man jumps into his car, travels 270 miles without stopping, walks straight in through Ann Widdecombe’s front door, bludgeons her with a hammer 21 times in just two minutes, steals her wallet and leaves and return straight home. This is almost beyond belief.

Further, the act was carried out in broad daylight and is allegedly caught on CCTV. If this is true, this will help the Police ensure the guilty party is brought to book and that is the most important thing here. Justice for Ann is paramount.

What really worries me is that tragic as this it, it may not be the last. Nigel Farage has already explained that he gets a death threat or two EVERY day. How can he be sure one of them is not from someone intent on carrying it out? That’s WHY he needs 24/7 security, it’s a matter of life and death and yet the government chose to downgrade his security initially. It’s a scary thought that maybe the Deep State wants you dead and wants to make sure it happens. I think back to what happened Charlie Kirk last year and the pattern always seems to be the same.

Ann Widdecombe was an exceptional politician but did not present the same threat to the establishment that Nigel Farage and Reform constitute. I suspect if this had been a left wing political figure bludgeoned to death by a person holding extreme right wing views, we would know ALL about them by now. Instead, there is a cloak of silence over the possible political views of the suspect. There’s a strong suspicion that he is an extreme leftist but details are slow to emerge. Why is that?

In fairness, Police describe this as a ‘targeted attack” and are investigating possible motives, including ideological ones. However I feel the lack of immediate transparency fuels legitimate questions about consistency and fairness. Is something being hidden from us that we deserve to know? I want to be fair to the counter terrorism police but they have indicted that there is only ONE individual involved in this murder.

The sooner we hear ALL the details the better. Justice for Ann and transparency for all.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

There is a scene from the film version of the comedy classic ‘Rising Damp’, in which Philip (Don Warrington) thinks he has mislaid his wallet. John (Chris Strauli), his roommate, suggests that the new tenant, Seymour (Denholm Elliott) is a con man who has, in fact, stolen the wallet. Keen to satisfy his suspicion, John persuades Rigsby and Philip to enter Seymour’s room whilst he is out of the house. To their surprise, Seymour returns early to find the three of them going through his personal possessions. Understandably keen to divert attention away from his own nefarious activities, Seymour slyly plants the wallet on John whilst pretending to frisk him. The suspicion of both Rigsby and Philip then turns to John as Seymour reveals him as the ‘thief’. Of course, the true culprit is Seymour himself, though we have to wait till a little later on in the film for Rigsby and Philip to realise Seymour’s true character.

I increasingly feel as if living in the UK today is like inhabiting a universe where the above scene is played out every time the British state wants to bury news that makes its socio-political agenda appear in a bad light. The state is Seymour, trying to hide his true character. The wallet plays the role of an important event that has the capacity to shock or disrupt society. Finally, the British public are cast as Rigsby, Philip and John, unable to comprehend that they have been lied to or deceived. They are bewildered by events, knowing something just doesn’t quite add up, but unable to put the pieces together because they are outsmarted by Seymour – a true professional in the art of deception. However the state, like Seymour, is ultimately fallible – and just as Seymour’s own weaknesses finally expose him for the fraud he is, the advent of mass social media means those of us who have the time to unpick through the deviousness of the Establishment and its media lackeys can eventually expose their narratives for the toxins they are!

Ann Widdecombe wasn’t just any 78-year-old former political figure. She was somebody who has been prominent in British life for forty years. A TV celebrity and political pundit, as well as a prominent figure in Reform UK, she held traditional Christian, Centre-right views that, until the counter-enlightenment started by Tony Blair, were considered perfectly reasonable and acceptable in British society. She called out the heinous crimes of mass migration, two-tier policing, the adulteration of meaning around biological sex, and the elevation of every ‘progressive’ scheme and thought process. Yet, when it was announced she had been killed by an intruder in her remote Devon home, any suggestion of a radical or terrorist motive was quashed by the local police constabulary. Even when it was revealed her alleged attacker had spent 5 hours on the road, driving all the way from his home in Rotherham to the edge of Dartmoor – a distance of some 300 miles – the police still withheld the truth from us. It was only after a number of days had elapsed that the true horror of what had occurred was revealed. Ann Widdecombe had been bludgeoned to death. Yes, folks! Bludgeoned! We now live in a society where even to hold views anything close to traditional conservatism, can render you a target for the militant Left and its armies of street warriors, mental defectives and impulse control-bereft freaks.

Although it was revealed tonight (July 20th) that the man has been charged with Ms Widdecombe’s murder, the tragedy has been noteworthy for the blanket of silence from both the Establishment and the mainstream media since that awful day. But should we be shocked? These are the same Establishment and media figures that have spent the best part of 20 years (and especially the time since the Brexit vote) spitting venom at anyone that opposes them ideologically. Like some deranged puff adder, the venom emanating from their quarters has been as unrelenting as it has been vile. They’ve now had to row back on, or delete, many of the comments they made about Ann Widdecombe over the years, but we know their true feelings. When it comes to political ideology and conviction the vast bulk of the government, the civil service, charities, celebrities and local councillors are significantly closer in outlook to Ann Widdecombe’s alleged assassin than they are to Ann Widdecombe herself. Obviously they differ vastly on how the likes of Ann Widdecombe should be silenced, cancelled or delegitimised. What they don’t differ on is their fundamental hatred for her and the millions of us who think like her. If that fact doesn’t worry you, it bloody well should!

Maybe that explains the silence in the days since her assassination. For the British state and its media helpers have confected a situation where it has become mainstream, nay acceptable, to scream ‘racist’ at those who want a sane and discerning immigration system; to scream ‘Islamophobe’ at folk who see the incalculable amount of cultural incompatibilities between that faith and Western society; to scream ‘transphobe’ at all who know you can only be either male or female; or to scream ‘homophobe’ if you’d rather not have every item of street furniture plastered in Pride flags for three or four months of the year. They are the ones who have whipped up this frenzy, only to then recoil in shock when their apostles of a more questionably sane – though unquestionably evil – nature carry out their desire to silence opponents in the most primeval way possible. Gee whizz, they’ll even go so far as to concoct a cock and bull story about a ‘far-Right’ (yes, that bogeyman again) plot to attack an Islamic gathering in Suffolk at the same convenient time as burying news on the Widdecombe investigation (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/13/police-arrests-suspected-far-right-threat-islamic-event-suffolk). Not that they’re trying to divert your attention or anything. The fact that all suspects have been found to have no case to answer on this ‘plot’ (https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2026-07-20/terror-suspects-released-in-investigations-of-alleged-islamic-event-threat) should surprise nobody. Nice diversion strategy there, fellas. Actually, I need to reappraise my opening opinion: When it comes to medacity, Seymour had nothing on the state we live in!!

Subscribe

Share

Comment

It’s a horrible crime but as the details slowly emerge, some parts feel “off” enough to ask sensible questions. Stick with me as I try to do just that!

The Suspect: Joshua Kerry

Police arrested 28-year-old Joshua Kerry from Rotherham, South Yorkshire, on 11th July on suspicion of the murder. They later re-arrested him over terrorism-related offences. Counter-terrorism officers are now in charge, and he remains in custody. The Daily Mail named him publicly and other media outlets have followed.

Reports paint him as an ordinary very unexceptional man. He worked in admin at a local lift company and lived on his own after his father died late last year. Neighbours described him as quiet and shy – “the helpful type who’d sort your bins or take in parcels” A 2022 photo shows him smiling at a charity fundraiser, holding a jar of Easter eggs and looking like any normal bloke.

The Official Story

Police say that Kerry drove about 270 miles from Rotherham to Devon, carried out the attack around midday on 8th July, and then drove back home the same day. They’ve linked him to the scene with CCTV and other evidence.

Widdecombe’s house had several cameras around it, so you’d reasonably expect clear images of whoever did it. (Unless he scrubbed them?) Officers also found communist literature at his house. He also allegedly supported the hard-left Your Party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana. Nigel Farage has called him a “hard-left activist” who had expressed real hatred towards him and others. Farage is usually well informed on these matters.

The Long Drive and Other Odd Bits

That round trip – over 500 miles in one day – stands out as unusual. Committing a high-profile murder in the middle of the day then slipping back unnoticed feels a stretch for someone seen as quiet and recently bereaved. It is the act of an incredibly motivated individual even though Police have not said what the Motive is.

If the local CCTV was decent, why the delay before arresting him? Why the botched arrest of the 26 year old local man?

Then there’s the scrubbed social media. Someone seemingly wiped his online history thoroughly. It could be innocent – family protecting privacy – but it raises eyebrows. Why hide things if the case is straightforward?

Those Photos Don’t Quite Match

The pictures circulating online have sparked the most controversy. The 2022 charity photo shows him with a full beard, longer hair with noticeably different facial features: jaw, proportions and hairline to the image purportedly taken as he left his home on 8th July

They don’t really look like the same person

Comparisons online, including some AI checks, suggest the bone structure differences are too big to explain with just time, weight, or grooming. Now of course it might be lighting or bad angles. But when so many notice the same gaps, it’s fair to ask whether both images really do show the same man. Official sources tie the 2022 photo to Kerry, but the recent one still lacks official verification although the mainstream media have shown it.

The Political Backdrop

This murder didn’t happen in a vacuum. The UK has seen rising threats against politicians on the right. Ann Widdecombe was outspoken, especially defending Reform UK lately. The move to counter-terrorism and the extra terrorism charges point to some sort of ideological motive. The literature and possible left-wing links fit that narrative. Yet the “quiet lad next door” image clashes with the picture of a determined assassin. No Prevent flag, recent bereavement, steady but unremarkable job – it doesn’t really scream criminal mastermind, does it?

Why These Questions Matter

The Courts will decide on the guilt of Kerry if Counter Terrorism proceed to charge him. That lies in the future . But loose ends in a case like this do matter. Strong evidence – clear CCTV placing him there, solid travel records, details from the house search – should clear things up at the trial. Right now, the gaps (photo mismatches, the long drive,) leave room for doubt. We’ve seen enough cases where rushing the story or hiding details later damaged trust. We’ve also seen cases where the photos we are initially shown aren’t actually the true image - Axel Rudakubana comes to mind. Asking for transparency isn’t conspiratorial.

The Human Cost Comes First

At the heart of all of this is a woman who gave decades to public life. She has been taken from us in the worst possible way. Her family and friends will be mourning her passing and we should be all be respectful of them. I only want to focus on facts, not speculation. You see these political killings have the terrible effect of shaking democracy. That’s why they stand out. As this case moves forward, let’s hope the full evidence comes out clean and complete. Until then, calm questions are fair.

No one needs wild theories, just honest answers.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

You have almost certainly heard of an organisation called Hope Not Hate. Newly elected Labour Leader and Prime Minister in waiting Andy Burnham certainly has – because he has recruited several of their key figures to be central to his new Government!

I want to show you in this article just how dangerous to our freedoms this organisation is, and how telling it is that Burnham places their alumni so centrally. I myself have been the target of Hope Not Hate, as I will explain later, but let’s first get the history right.

Origins: from Searchlight to Hope Not Hate

The origin story of Hope Not Hate (HNH) goes back quite a way and is illuminating. It can be seen as an offshoot of a much older entity called Searchlight. Searchlight was founded in 1964 and revived in 1975. Until March 2025, its editor was Gerry Gable. Gable began his political life in the Young Communist League and the Communist Party of Great Britain. He worked as a full‑time industrial organiser for the party before leaving over its anti‑Israel position. However, he never abandoned the militant methods he had learned there.

Searchlight operated on a simple principle: “by any means necessary.” It used surveillance, infiltration, and smears. In 1989, a young man called Nick Lowles joined the organisation as a student at Sheffield University. He did not join a charity – he joined an established operation that had been engaged in street‑level warfare against “fascists” since the 1960s. Hope Not Hate, founded in 2004, can be viewed as essentially Searchlight carefully rebranded with a charity registration number.

Two entities, one brand

The first thing to understand here is that Hope Not Hate is effectively two things. There is the Charitable Trust (a registered charity) and then the Hope Not Hate, a Limited company. Same name, same branding, same people. Different legal status. The split here is quite deliberate. Charities are banned from partisan political activity. Private companies are not.

So the charity collects taxpayer‑funded grants and public donations, then funnels that money to the company through “recharges” or large grants. The company does all the aggressive campaigning. The charity pockets the tax advantages. Over the past five years, the charity has collected almost £1m a year. Shamefully, the Conservatives granted it £141,000 in 2019. The rot runs so deep.

Thankfully the Charity Commission saw through these suspicious arrangements. It opened compliance cases in 2024 and 2025. The regulator ruled the distinction between the two arms was “not clear,” resulting in the charity renaming itself HOPE Unlimited, recruiting new trustees, overhauling its website, and facing public criticism for slow compliance.

Some politicians called it what it is: charitable status used to funnel public money into “a purely political operation with a reported history of fabricating security threats, spreading disinformation and pushing smear campaigns.”

We can reasonably conclude that this is not a charity as many might understand it. It is a camouflaged vehicle for left‑wing political agitprop.

Methods: “intelligence‑gathering” by any means necessary

Their “intelligence‑gathering” is ruthless. A guy called Harry Shukman, a Hope Not Hate “journalist,” wanted to infiltrate “right‑wing groups” for a documentary. He went to the extreme of legally changing his name by deed poll to Christopher Morton, then obtained an official UK passport in that false identity, used it to deceive targets, then switched back a year later. The Spectator exposed all this here.

That was just one operation. In 2019, Tommy Robinson’s Panorama coverage captured alleged collusion between former BBC journalist John Sweeney and Hope Not Hate to stage a “fake news hit job.” Footage showed Hope Not Hate operatives on set, directing interviews, pressuring witnesses, and allegedly pushing fabricated texts. In 2022, in Robinson’s Hope Not Hate Exposed, former HNH employee Caolan Robertson (who I have met) made explosive claims: blackmail, sexual assault, supplying illegal drugs to sources, and targeting families to extract testimony. Are HNH “researchers”, or are they operatives who treat the ends as justifying any means?

A child‑safety “expert” convicted of child sex offences

Let’s consider a guy called Liron Velleman who served as one of Hope Not Hate’s “political organisers.” He was also a Labour councillor for Barnet, and a Jewish Labour Movement member. He gave evidence to Parliament on the Online Safety Bill in 2022.

In December 2024, police caught him in a sting. He believed he was messaging a 13‑year‑old girl, sending explicit videos, requesting photos in pyjamas and bra, and pressuring her for underwear images. In January 2026 he pleaded guilty to attempting sexual communication with a child and attempting to cause a child to view sexual activity. The judge called his behaviour “reckless, vile and frankly devious.” Disturbingly, he received only a suspended sentence. No prison time. This is the calibre of person that they have employed and sent to advise Parliament on child safety online. The irony is dead.

Fake news during the 2024 riots

In the aftermath of the August 2024 riots following the savage murders of the three little girls by Axel Rudakubana, Nick Lowles tweeted that white racists in Middlesbrough had thrown acid in a Muslim woman’s face. Here is his tweet.

Police investigated and confirmed that it never happened. Lowles left the tweet up anyway. Lowles later apologised, but the damage – fear and division – was already done. There is a pattern: broadcast first, fact‑check later – if ever. Even as people like Lucy Connolly and Wayne Broadhurst were sent to prison, Lowles suffered no consequences. There may be a possible explanation for this …and guess who it involves! He who is nowadays Lord Hermer!

Never was two‑tier justice more evident.

From the margins to Number 10

All of this brings us to Andy Burnham, because I have to advise you that he has wilfully surrounded himself with former HNH senior activists.

He has appointed Alison Phillips, a current board member of Hope Not Hate Limited and former CEO of Labour Together, to the crucial position of Director of Transition in No. 10 (North and South).

He has also appointed Matthew McGregor, a former Director of Campaigns and Communications at Hope Not Hate, to the crucial role of Director of Political Strategy in No. 10. And you thought Morgan McSweeney was bad!

Here is what Zia Yusuf revealed about him.

For additional context, Anna Turley, a former HNH director, is already Labour Party Chair! So Labour is riddled with HNH alumni.

A group under active Charity Commission scrutiny has former members now helping run Andy Burnham’s office.

Phillips has openly declared pride in supporting Hope Not Hate’s mission and pushing “diversity of ethnicity” in newsrooms. They have evolved from attacking the state to controlling it.

What Hope Not Hate really is

Hope Not Hate emerged from the same militant leftist milieu as Searchlight and has maintained close ties to Labour‑aligned campaigning networks. Its structure – a registered charity alongside a separate limited company with the same branding and overlapping personnel – allows it to combine charitable funding and tax advantages with aggressively partisan political activity.

HNH has been accused of using deceptive methods, colluding with state broadcasters, and pursuing smear campaigns; some former insiders have made still more serious allegations. One person described as a HNH political organiser, Liron Velleman, was later convicted of child sex offences.

Its most senior figure, Nick Lowles, demonstrably spread a false claim about an acid attack during the 2024 riots, which police confirmed never happened.

HNH ran a piece here which mentions me. It suggests I promoted QAnon‑related content without understanding what it meant. I was also mentioned in their 2020 annual report here. I am touched by their interest but would gently point out that I don’t have 170,000 Twitter followers, I have 310,000. Bless.

Those of us who have watched this network for years recognise its pattern: presenting itself as a neutral anti‑hate charity while operating as a highly partisan political actor.

Seeing key figures with close HNH links now positioned around Andy Burnham should give anyone who values impartial charities and open debate serious cause for concern. Free Speec

h is in peril before Burnham enters Downing Street.

Finally, here’s a thought from Bev Turner at GB News…

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The End of an Era

And so it ended—not with a bang, but with a self-congratulatory whimper. In his final speech to the House of Commons as Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer claimed he had left the country in a better state than when he took office following his landslide victory in the summer of 2024. The assertion was, of course, nonsense, but the real surprise lay not in the claim itself but in how quickly and completely his premiership unravelled, and what that rapid fall reveals about British politics today. This is my requiem for Starmer.

A Shallow Victory

It feels like only yesterday that Labour swept to power on 4 July 2024. Sir Keir had campaigned on a promise to restore competent, drama-free government after the turbulence of the later Conservative years. On paper, the result was impressive: Labour secured 411 seats and a commanding majority.

Yet this victory rested on just 33.7% of the national vote—far lower than Boris Johnson’s 43.6% in 2019. Starmer’s success owed more to widespread disillusionment with the Conservatives than to genuine enthusiasm for Labour. It is telling that the much-maligned Jeremy Corbyn achieved nearly the same share of the vote (32.4%) in 2019.The shallow nature of that mandate proved crucial. Starmer was never widely loved; the Conservatives were simply hated. That distinction explains why his premiership collapsed so swiftly.Early

Warning Signs: Southport and the Authoritarian Turn

The decline began barely a month after he entered Downing Street. On 29 July 2024, the horrific knife attack in Southport—carried out by Axel Rudakubana, a second-generation Rwandan migrant—claimed the lives of three young girls: Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, while injuring ten others at a children’s dance event.

Rather than focusing primarily on the attack itself, Starmer’s government moved quickly to arrest and imprison those who took to the streets or social media in protest. The former Director of Public Prosecutions’ authoritarian instincts were immediately on display, and the public recoiled. The phrase “Two-Tier Keir” entered the political lexicon and refused to leave.

The Budget That Broke the Honeymoon

His approval ratings collapsed over the following three months.

The October 2024 Budget delivered the decisive blow. Under Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the government imposed £40 billion in tax increases, including higher National Insurance contributions for employers and cuts to cold-weather payments for pensioners. The honeymoon period evaporated overnight. Starmer and Reeves appeared largely unconcerned by the growing unpopularity, and by the end of 2024 Labour was already floundering.

2025: A Year of Drift and Disaster

2025 began poorly and deteriorated rapidly. Labour initially resisted calls for a national inquiry into the Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs. In January, Starmer dismissed the demands as “jumping on the bandwagon of the far-right,” insisting existing reviews were sufficient. He performed a U-turn in June only after sustained pressure.

To many, this episode illustrated a defining trait of his premiership: placing party political interests—particularly the importance of the Muslim voter base—ahead of the national interest. By spring, Labour was drifting on the three central issues of the day: the economy, immigration, and the NHS. Public trust continued to erode. Despite repeated promises, small-boat crossings in the Channel kept rising, accompanied by further high-profile crimes. Starmer’s response rarely went beyond blaming “14 years of Tory chaos.” The public grew weary of the tedious deflection.

The Local Elections Red Flag Warning

The May 2025 local elections delivered a stark warning. Reform UK surged, winning 677 seats and taking control of 10 councils. The Conservatives lost 674 seats, while Labour—less than a year after its general election triumph—shed 187 seats. The loss of ground so incredibly soon after a landslide was an unmistakable red flag!

Internal Chaos and Overreach

By the summer, internal chaos reigned. On welfare reform, Starmer yielded meekly to his left-wing backbenchers, exposing a deep fault line within the party: an apparent inability to control spending because most Labour MPs opposed meaningful cuts. True to his Fabian instincts, Starmer also pursued greater state oversight of daily life.

In September 2025, the government proposed mandatory digital ID, provoking a fierce backlash over civil liberties. The plans were later diluted, but the episode reinforced perceptions of a Starmer government eager to turn citizens into “digital serfs.”

The November Budget deepened the crisis. Reeves froze income-tax thresholds and announced further steep rises—moves widely seen as breaking Labour’s 2024 promises. The government also scrapped the two-child benefit cap, adding an estimated £3 billion annually to welfare costs and signalling yet another fiscal reversal.

By year’s end, YouGov recorded Labour’s net approval rating at –57, mirroring the Conservatives’ dismal standing at the close of their own time in office.

The Mandelson Scandal and Electoral Collapse

2026 brought no respite. The shadow of Peter Mandelson—elevated to US Ambassador in early 2025 and later sacked over his Epstein connections—loomed large.

In April 2026, a report into his appointment revealed that the Foreign Office had been warned about vetting concerns yet proceeded anyway. The findings triggered fresh outrage, accusations of cover-ups, and blame-shifting across Whitehall. The timing, just before critical local elections on 7 May, could not have been worse. Labour’s results were catastrophic. The party lost around half the council seats it was defending, performed abysmally in Wales (securing just 9% of the vote), and could only tie with Reform in Scotland. This was the final straw.

The Inevitable Departure

Although Starmer initially vowed to fight on, the writing was on the wall. Rumours of a leadership challenge intensified. In June, his longtime rival Andy Burnham won a by-election in Makerfield. On 21 June, Starmer announced he would step down. Today, 16 July, marks his final day as Labour leader. On Monday 21 July, Andy Burnham will become Prime Minister. It is finally over although not without a quick visit to Kiev to see his dear friend Zelenskyy!

Legacy and Outlook

In just two years, Starmer’s premiership has come to an end. He was never widely loved and was often actively loathed. He appeared more comfortable on the international stage than grappling with domestic realities. His evident affinity for the EU and “international law” suggested a worldview more globalist than tuned to British sovereignty or even just the everyday concerns of ordinary citizens.

Few will miss his adenoidal whine at the despatch box. As Andy Burnham takes the reins and a new, more left-leaning cabinet emerges, the coming months will reveal the direction of travel. One historical pattern, however, seems enduring: Labour governments tend to conclude in chaos.

Fare you well, Sir Keir, and good riddance to you.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

It was initially just a regular death. Senior Reform spokesperson and prominent Brexiteer Ann Widdecombe had been found dead at her home in Devon of natural causes. Well, she was 78, so it was not an inconceivable event, just sad. That took a dramatic twist when Keystone Cops tribute act Devon and Cornwall Police announced that the death was being treated as a suspected murder.

Keystone Policing: Two White Suspects.

We were all a bit shocked at this but shortly thereafter the Police then informed us that they had arrested a suspect, a “26 year old WHITE man”. Top quality policing, we charitably thought, but then the Police announced that the suspect had been released without charge. It later transpired he was a local tradesman. Whoops.

Despair not, the Police then revealed that had got ANOTHER man, another “WHITE” man and this was a 28 year old from Rotherham. It is suggested by the Police that the new suspect had driven from his home in South Yorkshire to Ann Widdecombe’s house, bludgeoned her to death, and then drove home. They further stated that the man concerned has “learning difficulties” - whatever that means!

The Impossible Road Trip

This is a problematic assertion. Here is a time stamp of the alleged suspect’s car about to leave, presumably for Haytor to carry out the mission. This was Wednesday morning on the 8th July. It appears that she was murdered on that date, around 12.30pm but the body was not discovered until the 9th and then we were not told to the 10th.

Driving from Rotherham to Ann Widdecombe’s area (Haytor in Devon) is roughly a 270‑mile trip and typically takes about 4.5 hours in normal conditions; at peak times it’s more like 5 to 6 hours to be realistic. This journey was conducted at peak morning time on a busy Wednesday but had to have been at a record pace to get there in 4.5 hours with no rest breaks or refill. In this heat, that was a formidable if somewhat implausible journey.

Am I alone in wondering HOW the alleged suspect achieved that super speedy run? How was he able to directly locate her house, enter it, kill the poor lady and then scuttle back home? It doesn’t make any sense.

“Not Terrorism”… Until It Was

Devon and Cornwall police told us that it was NOT political or terrorism related and that it was even wrong for us to speculate. THEN came the bombshell news that the Counter Terrorism Squad had taken over the investigation and that “terrorism” was indeed a possible motivation. In fact, they re‑arrested the alleged suspect on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism after “new information and evidence” came to light.

So what was this “new information”?

Communist Literature and Convenient Motives

“Communist literature” seems very vague, I mean that could even include the Labour Party 2024 manifesto! And how does the position of such literature translate into terrorism? Are there additional pieces of information that somehow elevate this into something that would trigger a terrorist act? Are we being directed into the “Putin is behind every crime” narrative?

How did the suspect get this “Communist literature”? Had he any affiliation to any left wing political party? Was he acting alone? What was his reason to kill Ann Widdecombe? Remarkable as she was, Ann was not going to single handedly stop the Communist Revolution! So why was she selected for sacrifice? Had the alleged suspect any other targets?

The Real Heart of the Story: A Message to Reform!

Well, I think this is where we get to the REAL heart of this tragic tale.

You see I think this was a killing that was sanctioned ONE WAY OR ANOTHER by the British establishment. The fact that the alleged suspect was not known to the Security Services does not in the least reassure me. The “lone wolf” has been a preferred feature of political assassination for as long as time. Even the “learning disability” of the alleged suspect could be advantageous to those behind this.

And who are they?

Step forward the British Establishment/Deep State. You see I believe that Reform’s fantastic performance on the May 7th Elections has triggered the Uniparty. The rising crescendo of attacks on Nigel Farage and his colleagues has been off the scale. Anyone reading the media frenzy could be forgiven for thinking that Reform are a bunch of fascists who must NOT be ever allowed the levers of political power. Sir Keir Starmer summed the Uniparty view up when he said he could live with a Conservative victory but he could not live with a Reform win. The Metropolitan elite are determined to make sure this does not happen under any circumstances in 2029.

A Coded Warning to Farage?

Is it possible that the killing of Ann Widdecombe (regardless of who did the killing and whatever mad motive they may have had), was in fact a deadly coded message to Farage? After all, the Deep State has shown its contempt for Farage by putting up a man in a bin as his own real political rival in Clacton. Assuming Farage will win then it seems likely that the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner may move against it in the early Autumn.

The Commissioner for Standards is Daniel Greenberg CB. He’s an independent officer of the House of Commons responsible for overseeing MPs’ conduct and investigating alleged breaches of the Commons Code of Conduct. So he is not an MP but he gets to judge MPs. That in itself seems to say that Parliament is not supreme when they want it!

At the same time as Farage is being berated and humiliated by the legacy media, the Conservatives are trying to suggest that Badenoch has rebooted them. We are about to witness Andy Burnham enter Downing Street as the new Labour Prime Minister. So the Uniparty is giving itself a make-over even as Reform ia assailed on all sides.

I don’t think that this is coincidence- it is deliberate.

And so was the killing of Ann Widdecombe.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The brutal (alleged) murder of senior Reform spokesperson and well known personality Ann Widdecombe is sending a seismic shock throughout the UK. With every new twist and turn, things seem to get more murky and less clear. Some may feel that Devon and Cornwall Police are operating in a way that raises more questions than it answers, so let’s try and pull together all that we know so far and see where that takes us.

What happened

It all started when information was released on Friday morning that Ann Widdecombe had died. Initially this seemed sad but benign. Like millions, I assumed she may have had a heart attack. But we then discovered that her body had been discovered the day before, with serious head injuries. Within a few short hours, we were told that it was likely that she had been murdered.

This was followed up with the news that a 26 year old “white British Man” had been arrested in connection with this alleged killing. He was then released without charge. Police advised that they would not release CCTV footage of the alleged killer. This was then followed by the news that the Police had arrested another suspect, this time a 28 year old “white British man” who came from Rotherham to Ms Widdecombe’s house. Even this was a bit vague because we don’t quite know if he drove from Rotherham to Haytor in Devon where she lived OR if he simply had returned to that location. Police have also added that they are now not looking for anyone else, so implying that this latest suspect is the one they believe committed the crime.

Have they got their man?

The Fog of Devon and Cornwall Police

Nothing is clear beyond the fact that Police has explicitly stated this was not a terrorist attack and that it was NOT politically driven. It appears that we are being asked that a “White British Man” drove 250 miles, killed Ann Widdecombe without taking anything from her house, and then returned home. Time to ask a few questions of Devon and Cornwall Police!

Why, for example, has this Police Force made such a point of emphasising the ethnicity of the suspect. This is so unusual with British Police Forces who go out of their way to obscure ethnicity of most suspects. In this case a clear message has been sent to the British public. This terrible crime has been committed by someone with a “White British” ethnicity, the motive has not yet been divulged and we are told not to speculate about it.

At this point I would point out that this particular Police Force had been in “special measures” for several years, indicating that it was seen to be operating below the required professional level. Now it did come out of these special measures last summer but doubts must surely remain about just how competent it is? As a further point of detail, six police forces in England are still in special measures. Those include the Metropolitan Police, Greater Manchester Police, Cleveland Police, Gloucestershire Constabulary, Staffordshire Police, and Wiltshire Police. It doesn’t inspire confidence in Policing, does it?

MORE NEW SUSPECT INFORMATION

Now we do have some NEW anecdotal information on the suspect.

Neighbours describe him as as a learning difficulties "loner" who didn't seem to work and rarely left his house . He went "loopy" and became "more introverted" once his father died before Christmas, who he had moved in with just a year ago He was “someone you'd have a conversation with but that changed after his dad died. He became very quiet. He kept himself to himself and wouldn't really speak to anyone"
It seems his red Vauxhall Corsa "barely moved" from the driveway to the point weeds were growing on it.

He is one of three brothers - one is believed to live in Devon while his other brother and mother live locally A neighbour saw him place "some kind of wooden stick" in the passenger side of his car before leaving at 7am on the morning Widdecombe died. He is believed to have then driven 270 miles to Devon before Widdecombe was attacked in her home at around 12:30pm

WHEN DID THE MURDER HAPPEN?

It seems so weird. If this information is true, he went to tremendous lengths to kill Ann Widdecombe. What exactly was his motive? Did he know her? How did he know where she lived? It appears that the murder took place in the middle of the day.

It appears that Ann was due to go on Channel 5 and they released the following messages.

From this exchange, we can see that she was alive at 12.19pm. Then, tragedy struck and she stopped responding by 12.48.

It is SO terrible to read these knowing that she was most likely killed shortly after that 12.19pm message. In broad daylight.

If the Police are convinced that this was a “mentally ill lone wolf”, then can’t they give us more assurance? Why did they initially arrest a different man? On what evidence could they have made such a mistake.

POLITICAL MANIPULATION ALLEGATIONS?

And then we get to the suggestion that is being manipulated to political effect. Ann Widdecombe was a prominent figure in Reform and supporters would naturally be concerned to discover who killed her and why. By inserting the “White British Man” and “learning difficulties” into the narrative, the Police effectively calm it down and remove any other concerns.

All Reform MPs have now been provided with 24/7 security paid for by the Reform Party. Clearly there is a sense that there is a broader threat to their well being and to my mind it emphasises that the £5m “gift’ that Nigel Farage took was needed to provide him with security to protect him from what happened to poor Ann Widdecombe.

For the past few weeks, the mainstream media have demonised and portrayed senior Reform figures as a real danger to the British people. Is it possible that they triggered this “lone wolf”? If so they have blood on their filthy hands.

UPDATE

Since publishing this article this morning, the story has taken ANOTHER twist with confirmation from the Home secretary Shabana Mahmoud that counter terrorism place are not involved in the investigation!!’

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

After a week of the mainstream media and political establishment demonising Nigel Farage and Reform, things took an ever more disturbing twist with the shocking news that senior Reform speaker, 78 year old Ann Widdecombe, had been found dead and that it looked like murder. Police have arrested a 26 year old WHITE man, we are informed. At time of me writing this, no motive has been given.

Now Ann Widdecombe has been part of the UK’s fixtures and fittings since the second half the 1980’s. She arrived during the final Thatcher years. She soo developed a reputation as a no-nonsense politician and later went on to became a TV personality.

Ann was born in 1947, went to Oxford before entering politics. She was elected as the Conservative MP for Maidstone in 1987 and she served 23 years in Parliament until 2010. Under John Major, she rose to become Minister for Prisons and Employment, earning a reputation for tough policies! She famously describing Michael Howard as having “something of the night about him.” In opposition, she held shadow cabinet roles including Shadow Home Secretary.

Ann was also a devout Christian convert to Catholicism and was outspoken on issues like abortion, law and order, and Europe. When she left Parliament, she embraced TV fame on Strictly Come Dancing and Celebrity Big Brother. A lifelong Eurosceptic, she backed Brexit, became an MEP for the Brexit Party in 2019, and later joined Reform UK as Immigration and Justice spokesperson. She was close friend of Nigel Farage who has put out a lovely tribute to her.

I was invited on the Mike Graham show to pay tribute to Ann but my computer crashed just as I was about to go on-air! Ann appeared on a podcast I hosted a few years ago and she was just as you would expect. She was well informed, not to be trifled with and aways entertaining. And now she is dead.

Tributes had been pouring in following the announcement of her sudden death but then came the twist - it was suspected murder. Now all decent people would respond to this horror with sympathy and understanding, but there were exception.

Peter Tatchell decided this was the right response.

Initially he defended it, then removed it.

There were worse takes…

The last of these was posted on Bluesky, the left’s version of Twitter/X. Along wth these…

How can people have such hatred towards this 78 year old woman? I’ll tell you why - it’s because they have been trained by the mainstream media to hate. Whether it is Nigel Farage himself or Reform in general, the hatred is directed towards them.

Check out this headline in the UK media press on the day Ann was killed.

This is part of the concerted hate wave directed against Team Farage. The UK deep state has gone into overdrive suggesting that Farage is the worst person in Britain and by inference those around are just as bad. Ann Widdecombe knew just how dangerous this pro-Remain State can be. She was ON Talk Radio the day before her death…

She knew. Farage knows. Those of us who have eyes can see too.

The British deep state will be ANYTHING to stop Farage getting near power.

I think they want Farage taken down, dead or live.

Perhaps Ann Widdecombe was some sort of warning?

Subscribe now

Share

Well, that was then, here is a NEW Moygashel bonfire all ready to be burnt on 11th night. Let’s discuss it because it is even MORE controversial.

Read more

You may have seen the sad news that Bonnie Tyler has died, aged 75. Like millions others, I enjoyed her music and she will be missed. Bonnie’s BIGGEST hit was “Total Eclipse of the Heart” which perfectly suited her husky voices and sexy look. But the story behind the song intrigued me. You see it has a distinct Meatloaf Operatic character to it and yes, it was indeed written by the legendary Jim Steinman.

Here’s how she came to sing that song. Her career had stalled by the early 1980s. She had just signed to a new label and was looking to move from the country‑rock sound of “It’s a Heartache” and “Lost in France” to a bigger rock sound.

She’d seen Meat Loaf perform the phenomenal Bat Out of Hell and said she wanted to work with Steinman, who had written and produced that epic album.

Despite being told he would never agree, she insisted her label at least ask him.

You can’t beat persistence!

Steinman declined, but later agreed to meet Tyler. He listened to her voice and influences, and agreed to produce her new album Faster Than the Speed of Night.

He then played her a demo of a long ballad he had been developing for a Nosferatu vampire musical—originally titled “Vampires in Love”—and he reworked it as “Total Eclipse of the Heart” for her, seeing her raspy voice as perfect for the song.

Tyler recorded the track in New York, following Steinman’s method of singing it straight through multiple times and then choosing the take with the best feel. She has said she was stunned he was giving her such an epic song and “poured [her] heart out” into the performance. The full version ran nearly seven minutes!

It is wonderful piece of musical drama. Here’s to you, Bonnie. You made memorable music.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment