Tony Small @Tony__Small

If you are still out there, frothing at the mouth & pounding your keyboard in defence of “palestine”, allow me to be perfectly clear: you’re not merely wrong. You’re a moral disgrace, wilfully blind and intellectually bankrupt. Your performative outrage is not compassion; it’s the tantrum of the historically illiterate, the virtue-signalling of those too lazy or too cowardly to confront uncomfortable truths. While you shriek about “colonialism”, “occupation” & “apartheid”, the rest of us watch in appalled fascination as you invert reality with the agility of a possessed contortionist. A sovereign state attacked by genocidal terrorists on 7 October becomes, in your twisted narrative, the fault of the victims. The people who built a thriving democracy in a desert, who offered peace after peace only to be met with rejection & rockets, are cast as the villains. Meanwhile the savages who stormed across the border that day, high on Captagon & bloodlust, are recast as noble “resistance fighters”. Spare us the theatrics. Let’s recall, with the cold disgust it deserves, what your beloved “martyrs” actually did. They didn’t engage soldiers in battle. They slaughtered civilians at a music festival. They raped women & girls, mutilated genitals, performed necrophilia on corpses, decapitated people, burned families alive in their safe rooms. They documented their own depravity on GoPro cameras, giggling like hyenas as they paraded the broken bodies of hostages through Gaza’s streets to cheering crowds. These weren’t acts of desperation. They were carnival atrocities by sub-human monsters who celebrated their barbarism in real time. And still you double down. Still you march with your keffiyehs & your slogans, denying the evidence of your own eyes or, worse, cheering it. You wave placards for a people whose own leadership diverts billions in aid to tunnels & terror rather than schools & hospitals. You scream “genocide” while ignoring the actual charter of Hamas that calls for the extermination of Jews. Your selective compassion is as grotesque as it is predictable: dead Israelis are mere footnotes, but ‘palestinian’ casualties, often the tragic result of Hamas embedding itself among civilians, become sacred propaganda. The inversion is complete. The indigenous Jewish people, are labelled “settler-colonialists”. The actual colonisers & conquerors who swept through the region under the green flag are airbrushed from your fairy tale. You’ve learned nothing from history except how to repeat its worst slogans with a straight face. If after all this evidence, after the rapes & the beheadings and the hostage videos, you’re still shilling for these terrorists while demonising Jews & Israelis, then you’re not misguided. You’re rotten. There is no polite seminar that will fix you. No carefully curated facts will penetrate the carapace of your self-righteousness. Some minds are not worth the oxygen required to educate them. Do the world a favour and keep your poisonous ideology to yourself. Better yet, do not breed. The last thing civilisation needs is another generation raised on such rancid, reality-denying hatred. History will judge you, and it will not be kind.

The ‘Free Palestine’ float at the Durham Miners’ Gala was straight out of a Monty Python sketch. What debt do the miners owe to Palestine? The modern ‘left’ is a farce, says Lisa McKenzie spiked-online.com/2026/07/16/mus…

General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton: “Trans Bash Back is a militant protest group that has vandalised a Labour MP’s office, disrupted a feminist conference, caused the EHRC to be evicted and caused hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage to the Free Speech Union – all in an attempt to bully, harass and intimidate those they disagree with. “No one is preventing Bash Back from exercising their right to free speech, but everything they do is intended to deprive their opponents of that right.”

The Palestinian Authority Is Collapsing, And It Should Be Allowed to Die I’ve watched the Palestinian leadership from the inside my entire life. They have rejected every opportunity for peace and statehood, from the 1948 Partition Plan, all the way to 1993, 2000, and 2008. At every single junction, destroying Israel was more important to them than building a normal life for their own people. Instead of building a functioning society, they created a corrupt system based on victimhood and permanent conflict. The Palestinian Authority became nothing but a criminal middleman that stole from its people while living off international aid and Israeli tax money. October 7th was the last bridge they burned with their own hands. The Palestinian Authority is collapsing, and it should be allowed to die. The same goes for Hamas and every other failed Palestinian entity. The Arabs of Judea and Samaria deserve a chance at a normal life. They deserve to raise their children in peace, send them to school without teaching them to hate, and build a future instead of sacrificing them for a fantasy. The solution is not another Palestinian “state” or another corrupt authority. The real path forward is to remove the middlemen completely and work directly with the tribal and clan leaders, the people who actually care about their communities, not about slogans and resistance. The Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and the whole “resistance” industry have been a curse on these people for far too long. It’s time to end this failed experiment and try a completely different approach.

"This is a gimmick" from a man who is only an MP cos he forced a by-elction when one not needed, all to force an internal LP coup to dump one prime minister & allow his own coronation. Now that is what I call a gimmick.

Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes

a week ago

Andy Burnham spokesman: "This is a gimmick designed to distract from serious allegations about Farage's funders. What really matters in politics is how we can change Westminster to take power for communities and take it back to people to make life more affordable for them."

254 39 176 221K 17

Lisa Nandy and Lucy Powell are leading Labour’s tinpot free speech crackdown. The two senior Labour figures — Lucy Powell and Lisa Nandy — are working in lockstep to bring social media companies to heel and muzzle people who wish to point out the Government’s failures. Last week, Lisa Nandy flounced off X, taking her department with her. The Secretary of State responsible for media called the spread of misinformation and disinformation a threat to democracy and free speech, then vacated the stage. If Nandy really did care about misinformation, surely she should have stayed on the platform and engaged in debate? This dramatic move came just a week after she announced plans in the House of Commons, as part of the Government’s Green Paper, to force social media companies to prioritise and promote what they deem to be “trustworthy” news sources. Now, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Lucy Powell is pushing for greater restrictions on social media during election periods. Her proposals would see private citizens treated like broadcasters and could result in the censorship of those who wish to engage in political debate online. Will we see private citizens — both domestic and foreign — hauled before Ofcom to answer for their tweets? Gareth Roberts writes that “these plans feel like the activities of a failing, flailing kleptocracy of the last century”. He adds: “It turns out that the hard-won freedoms of the British people – achieved by reformers and free thinkers long dead – are to be ended not by legions of brutes rolling down Regent Street in tanks, but by a gaggle of gormless supply teachers. Where Goebbels failed, Miss Hoolie from Balamory has triumphed. “The nerve of the Labour Party trying to muzzle its political opponents – under an obviously spurious claim of public safety – is disorienting. Nobody can quite believe their audacity, the absence of a scintilla of self-awareness.” This is a full-fledged assault on our right to free speech and open political debate. Gareth writes: “A propagandist of communism or fascism at least states openly that they are manufacturing a narrative for ideological control. The truly terrifying thought about Labour is that Nandy and Powell genuinely think that their worldview, such as it is, is the only correct one. “We are, then, to have our public square adjudicated by the very same people who thought that rapists should be housed in women’s prisons (Nandy), and that mere mention of the unshiftable moral stain of the Pakistani rape gangs was ‘getting a little dog whistle out’ (Powell).” Read more below 👇

The official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will make it harder for public institutions to deal with issues such as the grooming gangs scandal, Islamist extremism, gender inequality and violence against women. Additionally, rather than preventing genuine instances of violence and harassment, it will criminalise legitimate debate about Islam and further exacerbate community tensions. As Shadow Equalities Minister Claire Coutinho says in the latest FSU Podcast, there are already laws in place to deal with violence and harassment against any religious group. Rather than waste taxpayers’ money and reintroduce Britain’s blasphemy laws — for Islam alone — the Government should enforce the existing laws. We have already seen the dangers of an Islamophobia definition with the grooming gangs scandal. Many of the councils in which the gangs operated in had adopted the APPG definition. The report into the scandal stated that specifically discussing the grooming gangs constituted an act of anti-Muslim racism. Authorities looked the other way while these young girls were raped for fear of being accused of racism and Islamophobia. Watch @ClaireCoutinho and @DavidRoseUK on the latest episode of the FSU Podcast 👇

There is more to Lisa Nandy’s flouncing off X than just one minister’s irritation with ‘misinformation’. Other senior Labour figures and allied NGOs have also condemned X’s free-speech policies. They loathe X for giving the public a voice, says Ada Akpala buff.ly/k1SAWoO

The point about free speech absolutism really matters. I genuinely think the only way we resolve terrible ideas is through better ideas. That can feel daunting in a world where people respond to disagreement with attacks. When attacks happen because you think people with different ideas are fascist or evil - or if someone like Charlie Kirk is assassinated, it creates a climate of fear. It becomes a world where people say words are violence, and therefore they feel entitled to do violence to you because your ideas are considered reprehensible, because you are not seen as a fellow citizen and human but as something evil. It is frightening, but that is exactly when courage is needed. Free speech absolutism gives us the only real tool we have, which is faith, whether secular or religious, in our fellow citizens. Faith that the power of good ideas and the illumination they bring can act as an antiseptic against bad ideas. Sometimes we will lose. But the alternative is far worse. The flip side is absolute barbarism, a descent into violence and dehumanisation, in what should be a shared quest for civilisation over barbarism. Speaking at @ARC_Conference with @toadmeister @SethDillon @bindelj

Why are some Labour MPs desperate to revive the wretched assisted-dying bill? It failed for a reason – because it was dangerously flawed. It’s time to slay this legislative zombie once and for all, says Kevin Yuill buff.ly/WJnnFvW

Thangam Debbonaire sits in the House of Lords. Here she is having an unhinged breakdown and excusing sexual assault from illegal migrants since “white men do it to.”

Andy Burnham has stormed to victory in Makerfield. But anyone who thinks this spells the death of populism is in for a rude awakening. The working-class fury with the uniparty hasn’t gone away. ‘King’ Andy won’t fix our broken nation, says Brendan O’Neill buff.ly/HFPEOwy

You Can’t Fight For Something You Never Had While some Arab families had lived in this land for generations, the Arab population grew dramatically during the British Mandate as Zionist development created jobs and economic opportunities that attracted large numbers of migrants from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. The political entity called “Palestine” was created by the British and only existed for 28 years. If today’s self-proclaimed Palestinians want to be honest, they should tell us: What was the name of the historic Islamic Arab entity that existed here before the British Mandate? What exactly are they fighting to restore? The truth is, they are not fighting for something they lost. They are fighting for something they never had.

The state has no solutions to the problems we've been talking about, whether it's borders, education, or the economy, but that its big idea, the Blair Institute's and Tony Blair's big idea, is that we can monitor, survey, evaluate, and assess people. It's like when they said that digital ID was needed to stop illegal migrants crossing on boats. That argument was ridiculed, so now protecting and safeguarding children is being used to justify the same thing because it's a much more difficult argument to oppose. No decent person is going to say, "Of course I don't want to protect children," right? But the upshot of what this means is a situation in which our devices are continually monitored. We’ve just been through a period a few years ago during lockdown when we had surveillance of doctors, journalists, and ordinary citizens. We had a Rapid Response Unit and a Counter Disinformation Unit that was revived. Things that were said could result in you being shadow banned or pursued. We've seen this through the Twitter Files and the Lockdown Files. So we've got a situation where this is already happening within the state apparatus. The idea of extending that across the board is a kind of technocrat's dream. They say they're not going to misuse the data. They say it's about protection. Remember the phrase, "We're keeping you safe?" That's often the language that's used. "We're keeping you safe. We're going to protect the children. We're going to protect you." But what it will actually mean is that we have to digitally verify ourselves in order to participate. Do Not Allow this government to impose Digital ID Verification via big tech on us all! @NewCultureForum Stand Together @Togetherdec

The House of Commons Justice Committee has delivered its verdict on the Government’s plans to slash our ancient right to trial by jury. It is scathing — and will make tough reading for the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, @DavidLammy. The Government has introduced the most sweeping constitutional reforms to the criminal justice system in years at breakneck speed, despite not having promised them in its manifesto. It seems to be allergic to scrutiny. The Justice Secretary claims that curbing our precious right to jury trial will save Crown Court time and reduce the backlog of cases. Yet the Committee acknowledges that there is no concrete evidential basis for this claim. In fact, the Institute for Government has said the reforms would save only 2 per cent of court time, not the 20 per cent ministers have promised. David Lammy’s 2017 review found that juries are one of the few parts of the criminal justice system where black and minority ethnic defendants do not face disproportionate outcomes. This Bill reduces the role of juries while simultaneously expanding that of the judiciary, despite only 1 per cent of Crown Court judges being black. Back in December 2025, Lammy himself said the reforms would not be applied retrospectively. That is no longer the case. Defendants expecting a jury trial could now have their mode of trial changed without a hearing. The Free Speech Union’s research has shown that those accused of speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be found not guilty in the Crown Court before a jury than in a magistrates’ court without one. Judges, lawyers, opposition MPs, Labour MPs, and even victims of crime have warned that David Lammy’s reforms will undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. We must defend our right to trial by jury. Read the Justice Committee’s report below 👇

It is 35 years since I first heard jetsetting diplomat the late Crispin Tickell warning us about 'Climate Catastrophe' if we didn't change our evil fossil-fuel driven ways. I think he was on his way to a conference in Davos Yet there are no signs of any such Catastrophe! I ask his ghost to Put Up or Shut Up! C'mon. Crispin, where is it? Show us!

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Why hasn’t the New York Times corrected its racist propaganda? buff.ly/lWnUsbK

‘I don’t think you have mate’ are words that will go down in infamy. That officer’s casual cruelty to a dying Henry Nowak captured the stinking rot of our DEI-driven police force. The police are playing with fire, says Julie Burchill buff.ly/loF3Tuq

Endless aid money for Gaza? In countless Washington conversations about Gaza’s reconstruction, one thing has become unmistakably clear: attitudes and institutional thinking have barely shifted since the horror of October 7 and the devastation that followed. Too many policymakers and aid veterans still frame Gaza’s future as a matter of restoring large aid flows — a technocratic problem of resource allocation — rather than confronting the deeper failure of the NGO, charity, aid, and development industries that entrenched Hamas’s rule for two decades and helped set the conditions for October 7. It is astonishing that many of the same personalities who profited from “developing” Gaza now expect to return as architects of its recovery. At a recent think‑tank event, I met one such figure — someone who oversaw vast reconstruction contracts and whose negligence enabled Hamas to divert enormous quantities of materials into its tunnel network. This individual casually remarked that “aid should be restored to pre‑war levels, and that should be enough,” revealing a mindset concerned only with reviving their personal fiefdom, not rebuilding Gaza. Under Hamas, every NGO operating in Gaza had to register first with the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and then with Hamas in Gaza. Hamas demanded board lists, funders, staff names, and full financial transparency — and assigned an internal security officer to monitor each organization. International NGOs complied with these requirements, even as those same NGOs refused similar requests from the Israeli military after the ceasefire. Compliance with Hamas became the price of doing business. Meanwhile, the sheer volume of aid flowing into Gaza allowed Hamas to survive financial sanctions and maintain multiple revenue streams — from the PA, the UN, Qatar, Iran, local taxation, and the group’s own foreign donors. Add to this the sprawling ecosystem of international NGOs, and the outcome was predictable: no sustainable development, no equitable distribution of aid, no functioning institutions, and no pathway to peace. Instead, aid became a welfare system that trapped Gazans while enriching an industrial complex of NGOs, consultants, Hamas operatives, and a compromised civil society incapable of resisting Hamas’s diversion of billions toward tunnels, weapons, and preparations for October 7 — all in violation of humanitarian neutrality. Gaza’s reconstruction cannot rely on the same apparatuses, personnel, systems, or approaches that failed so catastrophically. Repeating them will simply allow Hamas to reconstitute itself and ensure that radicalization persists, while Gaza remains stuck without transformation, cultural renewal, economic revival, strategic reinvention, or a viable future in the region.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

The Sectarian Wave Is Here. A Former Green Deputy Leader Calls It a Danger to Society A quarter of British Muslims have a favourable view of Hamas. They are more likely to view the IRGC favourably than unfavourably. Twenty one percent feel unfavourably toward British Jews, double the general population figure. Forty five percent believe Jews have too much power over the media. Thirty nine percent believe Jews have too much power over Parliament. Nearly a quarter believe violence is a legitimate response to burning the Koran. These are the documented results of a poll of 1,006 British Muslim adults commissioned by Policy Exchange. Dr Rakib Ehsan's conclusion is unambiguous. The United Kingdom is far from being a stable multi-faith democracy. Read that sentence again. The United Kingdom is far from being a stable multi-faith democracy. Now read what is happening to the vote. Muslim support for Labour has collapsed from 80 percent to 33 percent. Six in ten Muslim voters are prepared to back a pro-Gaza independent or the Green Party in Thursday's elections. The Henry Jackson Society has identified 171 sectarian style candidates standing across 31 councils, concentrated in Birmingham, Bradford, Blackburn, Tower Hamlets, Rochdale, Manchester and Oldham. These are not protest candidates. They are the advance guard of a structural realignment in British democracy that the political class is not yet willing to name. The Green Party's membership has tripled from 68,000 to 215,000 under Zack Polanski. The party's own former deputy leader, Dr Shahrar Ali, has identified that surge as Islamist entryism and described his former party as a danger to society. Two Green candidates have been arrested this week for allegedly posting content defending Hamas and endorsing ramming a synagogue. Both will still appear on Thursday's ballot papers. One finding stands out above the rest. Fourteen percent of Muslim voters polled reported having their postal vote collected by a political candidate or campaigner, almost double the general population figure and a practice that is now illegal. Courts have prosecuted it. It is happening at twice the rate in Muslim communities as in the wider population on the eve of elections in which those communities are expected to deliver transformative results. The parliamentary arithmetic is already set. In Bradford West the Labour majority is 707. The Muslim population is 71,280. In Birmingham Yardley the majority is 693. The Muslim population is 48,310. In Rochdale the majority is 1,440. The Muslim population is 31,067. In Ilford North the majority is 528. The Muslim population is 36,511. These are not marginal seats in the conventional sense. They are seats where a disciplined bloc vote, organised around a single issue, could remove a sitting MP regardless of anything else happening in the country. Thursday's local elections are the rehearsal. The general election is the destination. Dr Shahrar Ali's testimony is the detail that cannot be dismissed. A Muslim. A former Green deputy leader. Expelled by his own party for gender critical beliefs while the party gave a platform to a motion calling for the abolition of Israel. He says the Green Party has been infiltrated by Islamists, has formed an unholy alliance between Islamist entryists and gender ideologues and is a danger to society. He is not a right wing commentator. He is the party's own former deputy leader speaking from direct experience. Thursday's local elections are the rehearsal. The constituency table is the script for what comes next. The direction of travel is not ambiguous and the destination is not far. "Dr Shahrar Ali, has identified that surge as Islamist entryism and described his former party as a danger to society."