⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
“IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HARRY AND MEGHAN TO SAVE THE IMAGE OF THE ROYAL FAMILY.”
Mary (caller)
“Carole is invested in her hatred against Prince Harry and Meghan. Harry didn’t sell secrets. They were his experiences to talk about. You Jeremy have also felt that Kate and William’s team have briefed against Harry and Meghan. Harry and Meghan are on their path and they have more of an impact with their causes that they champion, than the same members of that family.”
#RoyalistMentality
#PrinceHarryAndMeghanUkReturn
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
The British entertainment industry has a grotesque habit of hiding its darkest open secrets in plain sight: if you turn predatory behavior into a prime-time comedy punchline, nobody is allowed to take it seriously.
For more than twenty years, the allegations now surrounding David Walliams were not whispered in private corridors. They were scripted, rehearsed, and broadcast directly into millions of British living rooms.
Look at what major television networks actually put on air while young women were allegedly being pursued behind the scenes.
On Channel 4, Alan Carr looked him in the eye and joked that Walliams was like an illegal taxi driver who lures women into a false sense of security before pouncing.
At a television launch, Jimmy Carr joked to cameras that he was just there to meet Walliams' next conquest.
Even the BBC’s own comedy Motherland casually dropped a line about wanting to be a children's author like David Walliams, but less sinister.
And look at the defense Walliams’ lawyers gave today. They openly admitted that these comments were not insults, but jokes written and delivered by his close personal friends.
The punchlines were the shield. If the entire industry laughs about it on Friday night, anyone who raises a genuine safeguarding concern on Monday morning is dismissed as someone who simply cannot take a joke.
Now look at the actual human cost of that culture. Comedian Lucy Beaumont just broke the silence, revealing that junior television workers were being told to escort young women to Walliams' dressing room.
Why did nobody stop it? Because as Beaumont pointed out, speaking out against a bankable television star gets you immediately blacklisted from the industry.
You lose your job, you lose your commissions, and you are replaced by someone willing to keep their head down.
This was never an oversight or an unfortunate blind spot. It was a multi-million-pound commercial cartel that treated the exploitation of young women as an industry running gag, protected its most profitable talent, and ruined the careers of anyone who dared to object.
The television executives didn't fail to see what was happening. They packaged it into prime-time entertainment and sold it to the country for ratings.
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
Replying to @SaulStaniforth
Kate Garraway being totally naive as per 🙄🤦🏻♀️. Stop defending Ross, I agree with Hazarika there completely.
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
Replying to @SaulStaniforth
In my long life , Ive never made lewd remarks about women . I was a ' lad ' and was attracted to the opposite sex , but I've never found abuse or rape jokes at all amusing . It's probably I don't watch Brand, Ross or Walliam.. Always found them cunning and a bit sleazy.
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
Replying to @SaulStaniforth
They all knew what was going on, who was doing what, and they all egged each other on, it was all part of the lad culture. Maybe not all of them did the deeds but they knew.
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
Replying to @SaulStaniforth
"That was the culture of the time."
No, it wasn't. It was what powerful people decided was acceptable 'cos it got laughs & made money. Plenty of others found this culture disgusting.
It's also important to remember it wasn't anything new. It just had better marketing than before.
2
190
Replying to @SaulStaniforth
Being friend's with perpratrators makes individuals enablers and complicit too. Jonathan Ross played big part in Russell Brand degrading young women, he was vulgar as Brand, he also knew David Walliams. Kate Garraway @GMB should stop making excuses for these abusers and enablers
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
#GMB discusses Jonathan Ross's statement.
Baroness Hazarika says the idea he didn't know what was going on is nonsense
Kate Garraway defends Ross & says he's being very brave.
Hazarika: "I'm sure you must be good friends with him but.."
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
The revelation that David Walliams’ solicitor sent a legal letter to intimidate a teenager into not warning others about his behaviour is utterly shocking.
The SRA must investigate Schillings’ work:
goodlaw.social/rddx
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
Why don’t you mention his age @BBCNews?!
And I think the headline should state that he was killed for “PLANNING” to throw rocks!
Disgusting savages
“The Israeli military said soldiers identified "several terrorists who intended to hurl stones" in an area where stones had previously been thrown at Israeli vehicles”
Israeli forces kill Palestinian boy in West Bank, health ministry says bbc.in/4j8GQGU
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
Britain must end all arms sales, all military cooperation, and all forms of support that assist Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
From Dennis Skinner.
This is lovely from Dennis Skinner on Jeremy Corbyn. It just hits the spot exactly, I think.
Dennis Skinner on Jeremy Corbyn:
"I don't think Corbyn's the best leader ever. I appreciate that he's not the best at appealing to a lot of demographics. he's crap with soundbites; not good at speaking straight to camera. Better in real situations with real people. I appreciate that he's not got a great deal of, what would you call it, zing. I don't agree with him on everything by any means.
Still, you know something I know? If Labour lose the election, Jeremy Corbyn will probably go back to being a local MP. He'll carry on holding speakers up for people at meetings, and helping people with their chairs, and thanking people for making the sandwiches.
He'll carry on having talks and doing constituency surgeries and attending debates and asking questions and campaigning on various issues and staying behind to carry on talking about stuff with ordinary people after the event's finished. If he weren't the leader now, he'd be campaigning on behalf of the party. He'd be standing at the back helping.
He's not going to swan off to a career of after-dinner speaking and corporate events and non-executive directorships and consultancies. He's not going to edit the Evening Standard. It's not his personal ambition that's brought him here.
He wasn't ever that keen on being a leader. The only reason he stood when he did was that, to paraphrase another Labour front-bencher, every other remaining left-wing MP in the party had already stood as the token socialist candidate in a previous leadership election, and it was basically his turn.
And here's the thing: his apparent lack of charisma notwithstanding (and what is this charisma that apparently Tim Farron and Theresa May possess? It's like nothing I've ever seen described using that term before), he's the exact opposite of what everyone seems to agree they're sick of in politicians.
The meaningless soundbites and stock phrases and glib dog-whistle oversimplifications don't sit naturally with him. He's better at sitting down calmly and talking about things like a grown-up. He's visibly irritated when interviewers push him to answer stupid, meaningless or leading questions, and, to me, that irritation seems remarkably restrained considering that I'd probably be unable to put up with such bollocks without flying into an expletive-laden rant.
He reminds me of a Scandinavian politician, and that's nothing but a compliment. Politicians aren't supposed to be evangelists or salespeople; they're supposed to be people of substance, not just a mass of superficially appealing tics, right? Right?
In short, he's a real human person, like you get in real life, not whatever kind of thing most politicians are where you just cannot imagine them existing in any normal situation alongside real people without getting punched in the face.
I've seen people like him, working in various capacities, usually doing something socially responsible, sometimes voluntary. They help. They support. They sympathise. They don't usually get to the top of organisations because they're not naturally competitive.
And here he is, in a position he probably never expected to be in, and his expression is, for me, the right one: he's grim; a touch uncertain; perhaps somewhat daunted. Quite right too. Anyone who's not daunted by the prospect of being Prime Minister shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the job.
I want whoever leads the country to feel the responsibility as keenly as possible. The Prime Minister is the servant of millions of masters, not the master of millions of servants, as Theresa May seems to think she is. It's a horrible job, but if nobody else is going to do it, he'll have to.
Because someone's got to. You can't just stand there and do nothing. You have to try to help; to do what you can. That's what he's like. And if the election's lost as the last two were, he'll go back to helping in whatever other ways are available. And if he loses his seat (which he won't), he'll go and try to help somewhere else.
The fact that this man is considered unelectable when the alternatives are as they are is itself an indictment of our society. The UK needs to be careful who they shake hands with."
[Jonathan Connell]
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
Discussing Russell Brand, David Walliams & other male celebrities falling on their pork swords with Cathy Newman on Sky last night.
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
🚨 BREAKING: A U.S. Army Tomb Guard was forced to reprimand Pete Hegseth and his group after members of the group were caught laughing and loudly talking at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Veterans Day.
“All visitors will maintain an atmosphere of silence and respect at all times,” the guard shouted.
CNN obtained video of the incident.
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
Racists get old and forget the names of their loved ones and everyone else EXCEPT their hatred of Black people. Keep in mind these people have children an grandchildren that they passed their Culture of Evil to.
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
If you’re clearing some David Walliams books off your shelves and you’re looking for something to fill the space, how about the 4.4-star rated smash hit Drinking Custard - Diary Of A Confused Mum by Lucy Beaumont? Just a random book I stumbled upon randomly for no reason whatsoever, which in an unrelated matter would also be hilarious and heartwarming in equal measure if it became a best seller for the festive season.
Have a look at rebrand.ly/drinkingcustard. Yes - it’s an affiliate link. No - I don’t give a **** if that pisses you off.
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
Many have been asking for a link to my interview with comedian Lucy Beaumont about the #Walliams allegations (which he denies). Here it is:
news.sky.com/video/comedian-…
⚫️ ElleQat retweeted
BBC: The Would Say Files.
48 minutes and 12 seconds of the BBC defending Israel with "Israel would say" (or similar).
Compared to just 2 minutes and 38 seconds of the BBC defending Palestinians with "Palestinians [or Palestinian group] would say" (or similar).
The BBC Israel Would Say Files. The full results are in for both broadcast and articles.
Analysis of 267 broadcast interviews between October 2023 and October 2026:
- BBC presenters put Israel's case, in Israel's name, to guests criticising Israel's conduct in Gaza in 252 separate interviews.
- They put the Palestinian case, in its name, to guests defending Israel's conduct in 15.
- To better portray this disparity, our compilation of the BBC defending Israel in their own words now runs at 48 mins 12 secs. Our compilation of the BBC defending Palestinians in their own words runs at 2 mins 38 secs.
- The plainest form, “Israel would say”, was put to critics in 75 interviews. “Palestinians [or any Palestinian group] would say” was put to defenders in 4.
- 10 of the 15 Palestinian cases came in the first six weeks after 7 October 2023, and 5 in the three years after. Presenters were still putting Israel's case to critics in 2026.
- The above point suggests an editorial shift to stop conveying what Palestinians are saying, but to continue conveying what "Israel would say".
Analysis of 1,618 written articles, from October 2023 to October 2026:
- When an article reported criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza, the BBC added Israel's position 49% of the time (1,771 of 3,648 claims).
- When an article reported Israel's claims, the BBC added a Palestinian or UN position 38% of the time (914 of 2,431). A Palestinian position alone: 25%.
- Put the two official sides side by side. When the authorities in Gaza made a claim against Israel, the BBC added Israel's position 58% of the time (334 of 575). When Israel's government or army made a claim, the BBC added a Palestinian or UN position 39% of the time (855 of 2,165).
- Article by article: 71% of the articles reporting criticism of Israel gave Israel's position at least once. 53% of the articles reporting Israel's claims gave a Palestinian or UN position.
- In other words, in almost half of the articles where Israel makes a claim, it goes completely uncontested.
The full report, including every single broadcast and article in the corpus, can be found here, completely free of charge: newscord.org/editorials/bbc-…



























