Far Left UK Green Party Wants The Words ‘Mother’ And ‘Father’ Erased

The Green Party is going to war against language, having decided the words “mother” and “father” are no longer fit for its members.

Ahead of its conference in Brighton this weekend, Zack Polanski’s party has circulated an ‘Inclusive Terminology Guidance’ telling activists to drop “mothers and fathers” for “parents and carers”, and warning that the wrong vocabulary can create “unwelcoming or exclusionary” environments and feed into bullying and harassment under the party’s own code of conduct.

The Telegraph reports that the document, already in use as equalities training, brands a run of ordinary English “unacceptable”, then tells members what to say instead. ‘Sexual preference’ is out because it “implies that attraction is a choice”. ‘Transsexual’ is out because it “does not encompass non-binary people”. ‘Homosexual’ is discouraged for the same reason.

‘Lunatic’ and ‘nutter’ are non-compliant because they “reinforce negative stereotypes and stigma about mental health”. ‘Elderly’, ‘youngster’, ‘able-bodied’, ‘sex-change’, ‘female politician’ and ‘lady doctor’ are all on the discouraged list. Gendered job titles go too: ‘chair’, not ‘chairman’; ‘police officer’, not ‘policeman’.

The race section is the same project in different clothes. Members are steered toward “global majority”, described as an umbrella for people of Black, Asian, Brown, Indigenous and Latin American heritage, on the grounds that these groups are most of the world’s population and are “often minoritised” in countries such as the UK.

‘Brown’ should be “used with caution,” while “racially minoritised” is preferred because it “emphasises that minority status is created by social and power structures, rather than being inherent”. “Black, Asian and minority ethnic” is to be handled carefully, because “many people are uncomfortable with grouping diverse experiences under a single label”.

Keep reading

Officials Are Keeping A LIST Of Brits Who Question Government Policy

The British state is compiling a list of people who criticise its own counter-terror programme. Ordinary X and Reddit users who questioned Prevent training, flagged a one-sided focus on the “far Right,” or simply criticised it have had their posts logged, stored and “investigated” by a Home Office-linked unit most of them have never heard of.

Officials spent more than a year trying to keep that database secret. They only released it after an appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The public was never told their feeds were being trawled.

The Standards and Compliance Unit, or StaCU, was set up in February 2024 as an “opaque” body to handle complaints about Prevent, the safeguarding scheme sold as a way to stop people becoming terrorists. Documents obtained by The Metro and released by Rights & Security International show StaCU did more than wait for formal complaints. 

Between March 2024 and February 2025 it made 77 “observations” of critical online comments, most of them from X, with others from Reddit and even articles in the Guardian and the Telegraph.

Jacob Smith, Freedom of Expression and Belief Team Leader at Rights & Security International, fought for a year to force the Home Office to publish the material. 

“It is shocking that the government has been trawling X and Reddit to find out who has been critiquing Prevent – and then storing that information,” he said. “You should be allowed to criticise government policy without being put on a list.”

He added: “People should be able to express their views on social media without that being catalogued in government databases.” 

Many of those logged, he said, had posted without thinking “that the government might be looking at their feed and taking that data. It is in an almost private setting.” 

His conclusion was blunt: “It’s a stark reminder that, in the government’s eyes, anything you share online is fair game and could go into a file forever.”

A large share of the logged posts accused Prevent training of treating the “far Right” as the main threat while skating over Islamist extremism. 

One X user was recorded after calling the training “complete bullshit.” They wrote: “Anyone’s who done the prevent training knows it only talks about the far Right. Islam extremism isn’t even mentioned.”

Keep reading

Reporting of the RAF Fairford Arrests Blows the Idea of a ‘Free Press’ Out of the Water

It’s easy to forget that the western media – the so-called “free press” – likes to distinguish itself from media in authoritarian regimes on the basis that, unlike them, it asks critical questions of the powerful, reports facts objectively, and formulates its analyses dispassionately.

They do propaganda, we do news – or so the western media argues.

The feverish coverage since five men were arrested in the early hours of Sunday morning close to RAF Fairford in the UK is blowing that claim all too obviously out of the water.

Here are the known facts so far.

Three white vans, bearing the logo of a genuine fuel transit company, were spotted by a local farmer on the road outside her property as she returned from a party. Police arrived promptly and arrested the men, who were all British nationals in their twenties.

On Tuesday, it emerged that one of the arrested men actually called the police earlier – seemingly the reason officers were on the scene so quickly.

Although the men were initially arrested on explosives charges, no “viable” explosives were found. Although they were arrested on terrorism charges, which allow for 14 days of detention, they were released on bail under normal criminal laws in less than two days.

It has also emerged that the men had several empty “barrels” in their vans, plus one that contained what police described disturbingly as an “accelerant”.

Actually, that was simply a reference to petrol. The stuff that goes into vehicles to make them accelerate.

Keep reading

Let’s talk about…RAF Fairford & the False Flag that never was

In the early hours of Sunday morning, police were called to the countryside outside RAF Fairford, a US-run air base in Gloucestershire, after a local farmer reported suspicious activity.

Upon arriving at the scene, three white vans were discovered and five unknown young men were arrested. Bomb disposal units were called in.

That sounds like the set-up for a fairly cut-and-dry false flag, doesn’t it?

But it gets weirder. Let’s take a look at this official timeline, provided by The Evening Standard, and see if you can spot some potential irregularities:

September 1-25 — Locals living in the villages surrounding RAF Fairford reportedly notice increased security around the military site. Heavy machinery and concrete bollards are said to be placed at gated entrances to the airbase. Plain-clothed police were spotted in the area.

Saturday, September 26 – A person walking their dog early on Saturday evening in the vicinity of the airbase is stopped by armed police and told to return home, they later tell the BBC.

Sunday, September 27, 12.45am – Gloucestershire Police receive first report of three suspicious white vans travelling towards RAF Fairford.

September 27, 1am – a farmer from Whelford, a village near RAF Fairford, is driving home from a party along quiet rural roads when she comes across three vans blocking the path to her farm. Turning around, she later reports seeing “a large group of hooded and masked men” at a nearby junction before they quickly disperse.

September 27, 1.36am – After a failed attempt to contact the Ministry of Defence police, the anonymous farmer phones 999 to alert Gloucestershire Police. She is said to post in the local residents’ WhatsApp group that “something very odd is going on in the village”.

September 27, approximately 1.46am – Armed officers, backed up by a police helicopter, surround the vans, arresting five men only 300m from the base’s perimeter. They are detained under the Explosives Act. Emergency personnel and vehicles are seen on September 27, 2026 in Fairford, United Kingdom

September 27, AM– Gloucestershire Police declares a major incident. A 400m security cordon is established around the vans and Army bomb disposal units are deployed.

September 27, AM – More than 80 households in Whelford are evacuated.

September 27, 2.45pm – Counter-terrorism policing announces they are leading the investigation. The five men are also arrested on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act.

September 27, PM – US President Donald Trump says suspects had been “under view for a long time”, claiming they had been looking to cause “big damage” to the US-operated facility.

Monday, September 28, 1.22pm – In a statement on X (formerly Twitter), Iran’s London embassy says it “categorically rejects” what it calls “malicious speculation” about the country’s involvement in Sunday’s events in the Cotswolds.

September 28, 4pm – Police announce that the five men arrested over the RAF Fairford incident will be released on bail. The five suspects are a 24-year-old from Camden, north London, three men aged 23, 24 and 25 from Westminster, central London, and one aged 24 from Willesden, north-west London. Police say they are keeping an open mind about foreign interference, saying one possibility could be proxies “either knowingly or unknowingly working on behalf of a foreign state”.

September 28, 7pm – An emergency Cobra meeting into the security incident at RAF Fairford wraps-up.

September 28, 7.30pm – Evacuated residents in Whelford are permitted to return to their homes.

September 28, 8pm – Trump says he is “surprised” five suspects were released on bail. In comments in the Oval Office, he praises UK police but adds: “I will tell you, I would have said ‘Don’t let them have bail’.”

Tuesday, September 29, 4am (BST) – US secretary of state Marco Rubio says the “hand of a foreign actor” appeared to have been at play on Sunday but claims he is limited in what more he can say.

September 29, 7am – Police cordon remains in place around three vehicles at RAF Fairford.

Now, that timeline makes me want to ask a few questions.

Why were the MoD police not answering their phones despite apparent security concerns?

Why were five men suspected of planning a terrorist attack granted bail after less than 24 hours in custody?

And why is there still a cordon around those vans? How long is required to ascertain if there are bombs inside them or not?

Keep reading

Authorities Warn Against “Speculation” After Five British Nationals Arrested Near UK Airbase On Suspicion Of Terrorism

All Five Suspects Arrested On Terrorism and Explosives Suspicions are British Nationals

Five men were arrested near RAF Fairford early Sunday morning on suspicion of terrorism and explosives offenses.

Reuters reports that the men were all in their mid-twenties and were British nationals living in London.

“At this time, we are working to establish the full circumstances of the activity of those arrested, their knowledge and any motivation behind this incident,” Counter Terrorism Police said in the statement.

“I am very aware of the levels of speculation about the motivation behind this incident, and the geopolitical questions that are being raised. However, I ask that at this time, Counter Terrorism Policing are given the space to work carefully and clearly.”

RAF Fairford is a critical node for the US military’s long-range bomber force, supporting deployments of B-52s, B-1B Lancers and B-2 stealth bombers. Its role in strikes on Iran makes a conflict-related motive worth considering. 

UK authorities have not publicly established that connection, but the strategic airbase raises the possibility that the suspected activity was intended to disrupt US bomber operations beyond the Gulf area. 

Trump Says Suspects “Looking to do Big Damage” 

Reuters reported that an Iranian-linked motive could very well be behind the incident that unfolded early Sunday morning, citing a source familiar with the investigation. Counterterrorism investigators are also examining the possibility of Russian sabotage or an Islamist plot. 

President Trump told reporters earlier this afternoon that British and US authorities had been monitoring the suspects and alleged they intended to cause “big damage.”

“We had them under investigation. They were looking to do big damage to our fort and working with the British worked out great … We had them under view for a long time, and we got them,” Trump said.

Keep reading

How Many Ministries Of Truth Does One Country Need

How many Ministries of Truth does one country need? With Andy Burnham announcing yet another, Prof Michael Rainsborough points out that Britain’s “narratives of decline” arise because the country is, in fact, declining…

In previous essays I have sought to describe the political condition into which Britain and other Western democracies have been drifting by offering various analogies.

At first, I tried being serious. My initial forays drew comparisons with the post-totalitarian societies of late communist Eastern Europe, where the widening distance between official propaganda and observable reality produced an ever-greater institutional effort to enforce the official world view. Later essays pursued the analogy more directly, asking whether Britain was becoming increasingly Sovietised, with some of the same characteristics of a political order in severe decline becoming recognisable. With the supply of serious comparisons running low, and the ironies apparently passing unnoticed, there seemed little left to do except laugh.

Once the absurdities become difficult to describe with a straight face, parody is the logical next step. The difficulty now has been making the exaggeration last until publication. Institutions and bureaucratic inventions for comic effect have acquired real-world counterparts before the joke has had time to land.

WISDOM escapes into the wild

A few weeks back my satirical turn took the form of ‘The Spy Who Came in From the Consensus‘, a John le Carré spoof in which the machinery of the contemporary British state deployed its formidable powers of information gathering to confirm what it already believed. At the centre of the story was WISDOM, the Whole-of-Institution Strategic Data and Outcomes Management system. Created to defend Britain against foreign disinformation, it soon graduated to monitoring “harmful narratives”, “problematic nostalgia”, declining trust and negative sentiment about immigration. A genuine photograph of migrants arriving on a beach was flagged for “decontextualised visual framing”. Requests for original sources and factual corrections became possible indicators of hostile interference.

Having begun by investigating Russia, China and Iran, WISDOM eventually discovered that the most troublesome source of misinformation about Britain was British people’s stubborn attachment to feeling British. WISDOM’s final diagnosis of the country’s deteriorating social cohesion was commendably concise: “The problem isn’t the problem, the problem is the people noticing the problem.“

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Andy Burnham stood before the United Nations and announced the creation of a National Centre for Information Defence. Barely had WISDOM escaped onto the page before reality began catching up with the satire.

According to Burnham, NCID will detect, attribute and disrupt hostile-state information attacks. He cited Russian bots masquerading as British citizens, fake websites, fabricated reports, forged newspaper branding and covert interference. Most insidious of all, naturally, was the amplification of “far Right narratives“. Russia, Burnham said, was creating a narrative of British decline. Britain, he claimed, had surrendered too much ground to those promoting such an account.

Burnham insisted that the “negative” and “corrosive” narrative about life in Britain “bears no resemblance to reality“. A few moments later in the very same speech, Burnham described people struggling with the “cost of living”, lives that were “not improving”, young people outside employment, education or training, widening inequality and a society vulnerable to division. Making life more affordable, he then announced, would lie at the heart of a new “10-year plan” for Britain.

The narrative of decline therefore bears no resemblance to reality, although reality apparently requires a 10-year plan.

Keep reading

Does Britain Have a Free Speech Problem?

When Keir Starmer visited the White House in February 2025, J.D. Vance used the occasion to raise what he called “infringements on free speech” in Britain. Our then Prime Minister, sitting a few feet away in the Oval Office, was having none of it. “We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom,” he said, “and it will last for a very, very long time.” He added that he was “very proud of our history there”.

Was Sir Keir right to dismiss those concerns? I want to answer that question not with anecdotes, of which I have a great many, but with numbers.

Arrests, charges and convictions

Let’s start with a new report from Big Brother Watch, entitled Britain’s Free Speech Problem. Its headline finding is that between January 1st 2021 and December 31st 2025, 62,199 people were arrested in the UK on suspicion of committing just three communications offences. These are section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which criminalises sending a “grossly offensive” message over a public electronic network; section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988; and section 179 of the Online Safety Act 2023, the new “false communications” offence.

That’s a shocking figure, but it’s an underestimate. Several police forces didn’t respond to Big Brother Watch’s Freedom of Information requests, including Police Scotland. Big Brother Watch estimates the true figure is 73,023. So on a conservative estimate, the police are arresting an average of 34 people a day for things they’ve said, the vast majority online, and the true figure is closer to 40 a day. Russia, incidentally, is thought to arrest around 400 people a year for similar offences.

Of those 62,199 people, 18,520 were charged and 12,292 were convicted. That’s more than 12,000 people with criminal records for speech offences in five years. And that number is likely to go up if the proposals to curtail the right to trial by jury, first put forward by David Lammy when he was Justice Secretary, become law. Research by the Free Speech Union found that in the year to June 2025, 14% of people tried for speech offences in a magistrates’ court were acquitted, compared with 33% in the Crown Court, where the case was heard by a jury. Twelve ordinary men and women, it turns out, are less likely than a district judge to conclude that an intemperate tweet merits a criminal conviction. Leave the decision to them and more people will be convicted.

Is it getting worse?

But is the number of people being arrested for speech offences actually increasing? Yes, it is, as a similar piece of research by the Times established last year. It FoI’d every police force in England and Wales and asked how many arrests they’d made relating to just two of those three offences: section 127 of the Communications Act and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act.

Keep reading

UK’s Burnham Moves Toward Authoritarian Rule, and That Means Trouble for the U.S.

Here we go again: leftists have shown us again and again that they hate dissent and debate, which are the foundations of any free society. Now the U.K. is heading decisively toward authoritarianism as its crazy-left prime minister, Andy Burnham, has just announced that he plans to establish a “National Centre for Information Defence” in order to fight — you guessed it — “disinformation.”

The “National Centre for Information Defence“ is a canny name. It beats Old Joe Biden’s abortive “Disinformation Governance Board” in couching the whole totalitarian move as “defense” (as we spell it in the land of the free and the home of the brave) rather than “governance.” This is intended to give Burnham’s hapless citizenry the impression that what’s being done to them is not more control from the ruling elites, but protection from the evil machinations of deceivers.

Yeah, Andy, the Mafia offered protection, too. Anyway, GB News reported Wednesday that Burnham, “the Prime Minister, addressing the United Nations, announced the centre to improve ‘community cohesion’ and prevent a ‘distorted and untrue narrative about Britain.’” As a result, Burnham “ordered security chiefs to set up the quango, which will detect, attribute and disrupt ‘hostile information attacks’ and ‘deepfakes’ which hurt British interests.”

A “quango” is an organization that receives government financing but is ostensibly an independent group. And we all know that the far-left British government will stay fastidiously out of the affairs of an organization that is charged with stamping out “hostile information attacks” that supposedly “hurt British interests,” now, don’t we?

Keep reading

How the British Crown profited directly from human trafficking

The question of slavery and reparations has recently returned to the center of international debate, particularly in Africa and the Caribbean. The conference held in Ghana on reparations for the transatlantic slave trade and slavery, as well as the petition filed by a Jamaican delegation to the British king, engaged in the struggle for historical recognition. The debate has also been brought into sharper focus by an investigation published by The Guardian, which examined the involvement of the British monarchy in the system of slavery and the historical links between the Crown and the trafficking of Africans.

Taken together, the developments raise a fundamental question: How can the British monarchy and the British state genuinely address a past in which the Crown was directly connected to the economic and political structures of slavery?

There are symbols that, on their own, encapsulate centuries of history. A crown branded with a red-hot iron onto the skin of an enslaved human being is one of them. It was a real, documented practice carried out by the South Sea Company, directly supported by the British monarchy during the reign of Queen Anne.

Keep reading

Jamaica demands Britain pay billions in slavery reparations

Jamaica wants £10 billion from Britain for slavery reparations. Ezra Levant has a response on Tuesday’s Ezra Levant Show. It’s not £10 billion. It’s one coin.

“Two men, a European and an African, standing face to face, shaking hands,” Ezra described, holding up the medal. Around the edge: “We are all brethren.” Underneath: “Slave Trade Abolished by Great Britain, 1807.”

Flip it over and the other side isn’t English. It’s Arabic. “Sale of slaves prohibited in 1807 Christian era, in the reign of George III. Verily we are all brothers.” Why Arabic? Because of who was selling the slaves.

“The way this is taught now, you’d think slavery was invented by Englishmen in the 1600s. It wasn’t,” Ezra said. “Slavery is as old as civilization. It’s in the Torah, the laws of Moses regulated. It’s in the New Testament. It’s in the Quran. Every one of those books treats slavery the way we treat the weather, a permanent fixture of the world, to be managed, not abolished.”

What had never happened before in human history, he argued, was a group of people deciding it was wrong and acting on it. “Overwhelmingly, evangelical Christians. Wilberforce, Clarkson, the Clapham sect.” 

“The moral code of the entire world changed, and it changed because of them,” he said.

“Here’s the part they don’t teach you in school,” Ezra said. “The Atlantic slave trade ran for about 350 years. The Arab slave trade ran for about 1,300 years. It started in the 7th century and it didn’t stop until the 20th. In fact, in some parts it still lives.” He cited Ronald Segal’s book Islam’s Black Slaves, which puts the total at “somewhere between 11 and 14 million souls.”

“There’s a reason there is no large black population in Arabia today, the way there is in Brazil or Jamaica or Alabama,” he continued. “Most of the men were castrated. Most of those died. The ones who lived were sold as eunuchs at seven times the price of a man who hadn’t been cut.”

The medal, Ezra explained, was written in Arabic precisely because of who it was directed at.

“When the Royal Navy showed up on the coast of West Africa in 1808 to enforce the new law,” he said, “the men marching slaves down to the beach to sell them to the ships were very often Muslim slave traders from the interior, men who read Arabic. That is who this medal was for.”

The museum says plainly it was intended to deter Arab-speaking African traders from sending slave caravans to the coast. “It’s not a souvenir. It’s not actually money. It’s a warning.”

Britain backed that warning with a navy. The West Africa Squadron patrolled for 60 years, capturing roughly 1,600 slave ships and freeing about 150,000 Africans at a cost of approximately 1,600 British lives.

Two University of Chicago academics calculated the bill. “They found the campaign against these slave ships cost Britain about 1.8% of its national income, of its GDP, every year for 60 years,” Ezra said.

“You know, NATO’s target for a country’s entire military is 2% of GDP. Canada’s not even at 2%. Britain spent nearly that amount for two generations just on other people’s freedom and got nothing back except a lot of dead British sailors.”

Then in 1833, Parliament abolished slavery itself across the British Empire. Eight hundred thousand people freed. And Britain did something no other country has done: it paid for it. “The slave owners got 20 million pounds. That was about 40% of the entire national budget that year.” 

The loan, arranged by Nathan Rothschild and Moses Montefiore, wasn’t paid off until February 1, 2015. “If you paid tax in Britain before 2015, you were still paying for the end of slavery, literally paying for it.” Measured as a share of the economy, the economic historians at Measuring Worth put that at roughly £133 billion in today’s money — “about $250 billion Canadian dollars. A quarter of a trillion dollars was borrowed by the UK to buy the freedom of other people.”

Against all of that, Ezra turned to the reparations push now underway. The Caribbean reparations commission hired the Brattle Group, which produced a number: $24 trillion US. “Trillion with a T. That’s roughly seven times the size of the entire British economy.” 

In March, the UN General Assembly voted 123 to 3 declaring the transatlantic slave trade the gravest crime against humanity and urging reparations — “the transatlantic trade, mind you, not the Arab one, which ran four times as long.”

Nobody, Ezra noted, is asking Saudi Arabia, which kept slaves until 1962, or Oman, until 1970, or the descendants of the African kings who sold the captives. “They’re just asking Britain — the one country that spent 60 years and 2% of its economy stopping it.”

“No force in human history has done more to free the slaves, to stop the slave trade, and to enforce that ban around the world than the United Kingdom,” Ezra said, reiterating it took “60 years of its Royal Navy” and “a loan that took 180 years to pay off.”

He held up the coin one more time. “This little piece of bronze is what it looked like on the ground. A handshake, three words, and a sentence in Arabic. And so the men who’d been doing it for a thousand years would understand, it’s over. We are all brethren. They meant it.”

“Do you think anyone would strike a medal like this today?”

Keep reading