paul9115.bsky.social
218 posts
189 followers
504 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
This isn’t a party. It’s a one-man show wrapped in a cheap suit of nationalism.
And if history's taught us anything, it's that when one man has all the answers and no one dares question him — that's not democracy. That's déjà vu.
comment in response to
post
Meanwhile, the chairman of the party admits he had “no idea” what their own policy was. Imagine the chair of any serious political party saying that out loud.
The truth? It doesn’t matter what the policy is — it only matters what Nigel says it is today.
comment in response to
post
Let’s talk about how Reform treats its own.
Rupert Lowe dared to criticise Farage. Within hours he was expelled and reported to the police for “bullying.” The police found no evidence, but the message was clear: step out of line and you're done.
comment in response to
post
You say a rare appearance, but he's been to Scotland more times than he's been to Clacton so...
comment in response to
post
I mean that's the second part of this mystery isn't it? From my experience the top people in their respective fields don't work for free. They got where they are because they understand their value.
comment in response to
post
I'm more than happy to see them consigned to the history books, polls this far out from an election aren't all that helpful. They have years to fix their image (however dishonestly)
But I do hope the trend continues
comment in response to
post
When even the AI you carefully curated to be your personal echo chamber fucking hates you
comment in response to
post
Checks and balances exist for a reason. Disabling courts so unconstitutional orders can go unchallenged? That’s not strength—it’s authoritarianism.
comment in response to
post
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision will determine whether one branch of government can neuter another—shifting the balance of U.S. democracy.
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...
comment in response to
post
Example: Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship was swiftly blocked for likely violating the 14th Amendment.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...
comment in response to
post
It’s like complaining doctors treat too much smallpox—during a smallpox outbreak. Increased court intervention is a reaction to increased executive overreach.
comment in response to
post
The spike in injunctions corresponds with a surge in legally dubious executive orders. Since re-election, Trump has signed dozens—sparking 200+ lawsuits.
www.reuters.com/graphics/USA...
comment in response to
post
I don't think this is real. You're telling me throughout that entire interview he didn't once make reference to the world woke web?
comment in response to
post
For the first time in my life I find myself politically homeless. I can't in good faith support this government
comment in response to
post
It's madness
comment in response to
post
Final thoughts? Labour doesn’t need to mimic Reform UK. It needs to lead.
You can secure borders without criminalising compassion. You can uphold the law without undermining human rights.
This bill? It's not left. It's not centre. It's a swing toward authoritarianism.
comment in response to
post
And yes, it repeals Tory Rwanda policies. But don’t cheer too hard. Much of that cruelty is being quietly repackaged.
This isn’t a pivot toward compassion. It’s just a more polished boot stamping down harder, but with better PR.
comment in response to
post
Introducing the "Border Security Commander." Sounds neutral, right? Wrong.
This person will have centralised control over border enforcement — answering directly to the Home Secretary. That's a political post overseeing operational law enforcement.
comment in response to
post
Surveillance and data sharing are being massively expanded. Sections 27–33 allow wide-ranging data collection and sharing with foreign governments and private companies.
There is minimal oversight, and no guarantee your data won’t be misused or miscategorised.
comment in response to
post
The bill is full of vague language. "Likely to be useful" to immigration crime?
That could mean:
Teaching English
Explaining how the asylum process works
Warning people of unsafe conditions
Innocent help becomes a criminal offence.
comment in response to
post
Sections 13–16 are particularly chilling. They create offences for people who give aid or even "likely useful" information to those involved in immigration offences. There’s a defence for NGOs — but the burden of proof is on them.
This will scare people into silence or inaction.
comment in response to
post
Labour's new bill isn’t just "tough on borders." It criminalises acts that could indirectly support "immigration crime." That includes providing information or supplies to people who may be undocumented.
You know who this targets? Humanitarian aid workers. NGOs. Even journalists.
comment in response to
post
Reform UK talks about cleaning up politics.
But they can’t even clean up their candidate list.
You’re not sending in the outsiders. You’re sending in the out-of-depth.
comment in response to
post
And remember Farage’s big promise?
He swore the party was tightening vetting.
What we got was more like:
• Google optional
• Facebook unfiltered
•Racist
“Yeah, you’ll do”
comment in response to
post
This raises a bigger question:
If they can’t even manage a few dozen local councillors without scandal, incompetence or collapse...
How exactly do they plan to run a country?
comment in response to
post
Donna Edmunds quit the party entirely.
Called it “cult-like.”
This isn’t coming from the left—it’s one of their own who got out fast.
comment in response to
post
Extremism on social media
At least a dozen councillors caught sharing far-right and Islamophobic content.
The party line? “We’ll investigate.”
Which sounds a lot like “We didn’t check first.”
(Source: www.theguardian.com/politics/202...)
comment in response to
post
Warwickshire: Luke Shingler
Also forced to step down because of employment conflicts. Still clinging to the Reform badge, but no longer a councillor.
These aren’t slip-ups. They’re a pattern.
(Source: www.stratford-herald.com/news/reform-...)
comment in response to
post
Durham: Andrew Kilburn
Resigned after failing to declare his job working for the same council he got elected to.
Conflict of interest 101.
Vetted? Apparently not.
(Source: www.bbc.com/news/article...)
comment in response to
post
Two weeks ago, Reform UK celebrated council wins across the country.
Now? At least 22 councillors have already resigned, been suspended, or are under investigation.
That’s not a teething issue. That’s structural rot.
comment in response to
post
And sadly, many are too blinded by hate to care. Their lives may have gotten immeasurably worse, but they’ll still vote for more of it—so long as they think someone browner, poorer, or more vulnerable is suffering more
comment in response to
post
It's madness—but also a two-step con:
1. Blame a marginalised group for everything
2. Convince people the only way to punish "them" is by giving up their own freedoms
Add Murdoch press to the mix, and it’s shockingly easy to sell.
comment in response to
post
And that right there is the crux of the problem. Balancing freedom of press with standards is difficult, but we're way off the mark currently in my humble opinion.
comment in response to
post
The ECHR protects everyone. Even the people you don’t like.
Especially the people you don’t like.
Because the moment the state learns it can trample one person’s rights—it won’t stop there.
And when they come for you? There’ll be no one left to speak.
comment in response to
post
What’s the UK without the ECHR?
A country where the government:
Can detain you indefinitely
Can deport without appeal
Can ignore rulings from independent courts
If you think that’ll never apply to you, you’re the reason it might.
comment in response to
post
“They came for the migrants…”
And if you cheered, thinking you’d be safe—you’ve missed the point.
Without the ECHR, there’s no line the government can’t cross.
Workers’ rights? Protest rights? Speech? Gone. Legally. Quietly.
comment in response to
post
Now look at America
Trump, unhindered by anything like the ECHR, has openly declared plans to deport a million people a year.
Mass raids
Internment-style camps
Talk of suspending habeas corpus
It’s happening. Right now.
(Source: elpais.com/us/migracion...)
comment in response to
post
“But it only affects…”
Reform would have you believe the ECHR only defends “foreign criminals” or “illegals.” Sound familiar?
It starts with them—those already demonised.
Then it moves on.
Then it moves in.
comment in response to
post
The ECHR: Our last legal safety net
Created after WWII, with strong British influence, the European Convention on Human Rights ensures:
Fair trials
Protection from torture
Freedom from unlawful detention
It’s what stops the state from dragging people off in the night without consequence.
comment in response to
post
Yes, and it's made out of gold and shits diamonds the size of your fist