Richard retweeted
Lola Salem found with images of child sexual abuse, until a few days ago she was the girl friend of Michael Gove
Google News search of this story gives ONE hit and all the online newspaper reports have been deleted or hidden
The UK establishment protecting pedophiles again
Richard retweeted
Fifteen outlets published 249 articles about Professor Jason Arday, but there appears to be a partial media blackout surrounding Dr Lola Salem, Michael Gove’s ex-girlfriend, who has been suspended from the University of Oxford after being charged with possessing indecent images of children.
Richard retweeted
A University of Oxford lecturer is to be tried on charges of possessing indecent images of children.
Lola Salem, interestingly aged 33, was suspended by Oxford's Oriel College in June after it became aware of the charges, which she denies.
She recently dated Michael Gove for 2 years.
Three of the images are classed as category B, the second most serious category, and one is classed as category C.
Richard retweeted
A 7 hour sexual assault
The young girl left school
Traumatized
These 4 grown ass men felt the punishment for the BOYS should be “writing a fucking essay”
Richard retweeted
These privileged frat bros gang graped a girl and invited others to join in.
The story was buried, only two were expelled (Cornell suspensions are for genocide protestors) and we are only hearing about it now because the victim is suing.
Cornell protected them, the police protected them, the system protected them.
This the Epstein class. This is how it’s bred.
Richard retweeted
I would take the Guardian's assertion that they were honour bound to investigate Jason Arday a lot more seriously if they had felt a similar obligation to report on sexual assault allegations that took place in their own office.
Richard retweeted
Seems pretty Antisemitic to me.
How have we got to the place that they feel so emboldened to write this shit?
These days many British Jews see Zack Polanski as a traitor to his origins, not a disciple of Jewish ideas. Our profile explores how he has embraced the anti-Israel fervour that has swept the new left economist.com/1843/2026/08/1…
Richard retweeted
I believe that with the right propaganda, you can get at least 50% of the population to be mad at, or afraid of, anything or anyone.
Richard retweeted
The real cancel culture in Britain is around Palestine.
The wonderful @SangitaMyska came into the Double Down Newswatch studio so we could compare scars.
Plse share.
youtube.com/watch?v=am0vtQu7…
Richard retweeted
When Margaret Thatcher made England and Wales the only countries in the world with fully privatised water, the naysayers argued it was a terrible idea. Today, everyone agrees privatisation has been a roaring success.
It has delivered an impressive rise in customer bills which has coincided with an equally impressive rise in shareholder profits. These improvements were delivered through efficiency savings, such as not building any reservoirs since 1992 and forgetting about silly ideas like sewage treatment. Thanks to neoliberalism, turds are now a common sight at our beaches and marine life is not.
If that wasn’t impressive enough, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has confirmed the UK is officially the world’s dampest desert. Three-quarters of the nation has been plunged into drought, despite the fact it constantly pisses down. You are therefore banned from gardening and bathing your children so that data centres don’t go without.
No one knows why countries that contain actual deserts don’t experience the same difficulties we do. For example, Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a hose pipe ban. Unfortunately, we live in a place where the weather breaks everything. Sunshine? Drought. Rain? Floods. An inch of snow? The whole country closes for some reason.
The only weather the UK can actually cope with is grey and miserable. Any deviation leads to immediate national collapse. If we didn’t have such a brilliant water system, we’d be in serious trouble. But thankfully, our system is built to protect corporate profits, no matter what. Everything is secondary to that, including your ability to drink.
Thankfully, Andy Burnham is showing leadership on the matter. He is taking the emergency step of doing absolutely nothing. When questioned about nationalisation, the Prime Minister calmly explained that his donors won’t allow it.
In a bizarre coincidence, the system that allows them to personally profit is the only one that could possibly work. Sure, we could end up with crop failures and food shortages, but I’m sure things would’ve been worse if Jeremy Corbyn had got his way.
Obviously, this is not a systemic problem, it’s a technological one. Virtually all our rainfall is lost because we can’t make pipes that don’t burst. Water companies have absolutely no incentive to stop leaks and every incentive not to, but I’m confident this has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter.
The yacht of Mark Zuckerberg allegedly refused repeated calls by US Coast Guard looking for ships available to rescue a small boat with 2 women, a kid and a dog.
According to a user on BSKY who was on a cruise ship that performed the rescue eventually. AIS-track fits claim.
Richard retweeted
Aren't British aristos lovably eccentric? Fun fact: Amanda Feilding was the mum of Rock Feilding-Mellen, property developer and deputy leader of Kensington & Chelsea council who resigned following the Grenfell Tower disaster. Andrew O'Hagan sympathised.
observer.co.uk/news/national…
Richard retweeted
"But what sealed the deal for Starmer was more hard-nosed: the left had cohered itself into viable electoral vehicles that ran to the left of Labour. Zack Polanski, elected leader of the Green party in 2025 on a promise of uncompromising eco-populism, rapidly stitched together a coalition of voters who were appalled by Labour’s rightwing, accommodationist turn and its complicity in Israeli war crimes. In May 2026, this coalition precipitated Labour’s worst ever return in local elections. The Greens won hundreds of seats from the party, and took over councils Labour had run, virtually unchallenged, for close to two decades.
Many Green councillors and council leaders elected in May 2026 were historical victims of Starmer and McSweeney’s purges; many of the Green party’s membership and campaigning army were likewise drawn from the hundreds of thousands of ex-Labour members who had fled Starmer’s authoritarian, sneering, hyper-factional administration. Through intransigence and obsessive factionalism, Starmer and McSweeney had engineered their own defeat – and the revenge of the left."
novaramedia.com/2026/07/17/i…
Richard retweeted
Starmer was a fabricator and a fraud. We're well rid. My verdict for Middle East Eye:
middleeasteye.net/opinion/st…
Richard retweeted
Grateful to Novara Media for giving me the word count for a proper political obituary of Starmer!
"Starmer might not have a political economy, but he certainly has a moral one. He inhabits a world where some people are deserving of attention, grace, kindness or deference. Usually this is determined by whether he thinks they are ‘proper’ people: the suit-wearers who hold zippy ‘bilats’ or who wield the sort of institutional power he alternatingly fears or valorises. These people Starmer treats with genuine warmth, care and respect – like the media class that repeatedly defends him as a ‘decent man’ because they fall within his internal Venn diagram of respectability, cultural cache and power, so Starmer treats them decently.
But woe betide those who fall into his out-group of the contemptible. These are usually people other powerful and socially adept people think are worthy of ridicule, and will give Starmer a thumbs-up if he punches down. For this group, Starmer has nothing but disdain, or cruelty or indifference.
We know who falls into this category: leftwingers, Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott, peace activists and Palestinians; those who stand up at Labour conference and demand accountability for genocide; the irresponsible idealists who refuse to put aside childish things like protest marches and human rights and justice and saving the climate in return for incrementalism, stoicism, ‘grown up’ politics, handshakes with dictators, dinner parties in Davos and accommodation with the ‘reasonable demands’ of capital.
Or, more concretely, the hundreds of thousands of members he told to leave the party – and did."
novaramedia.com/2026/07/17/i…
Richard retweeted
This a deeply disappointing, borderline irresponsible interview of Morgan McSweeney from @bbcnickrobinson. It looks like impunity in action. Has the media not learnt any lessons from Mandelson and of the need to properly scrutinise political actors?
It is the BBC's job to hold political actors to account, to pose them real questions, and to get them to put a proper version of events on the record.
That is all the more important for a figure like McSweeney, who has wielded extraordinary power and has led or participated in attacks on legitimate, factual journalism, but who has never spoken about his role in these scandals on the record.
The interview doesn't touch, once, on the rock-solid evidence of McSweeney's serious unlawful misconduct or the Labour Together/APCO scandal. This stuff is widely available and easy to verify.
Here is a reminder of what we know about McSweeney, about which he wasn't asked a single thing:
1. McSweeney was Company Secretary of Labour Together from July 2017 to April 2020. During this period he failed to report over £700,000 in donations to the Electoral Commission. This was plainly unlawful. LT was found guilty and fined for this offence, but said in public it was an 'administrative oversight.'
2. McSweeney failed to report donations after he had unsuccessfully attempted to convince the Electoral Commission he didn't need to report them in late 2017.
3. McSweeney failed to report donations after the Electoral Commission told him, explicitly, that Labour Together had a legal duty to report donations.
4. McSweeney engaged in a two-month correspondence with the Electoral Commission in early 2018, in which it was clear he knew he had to report donations. Yet he failed to do so for over two years thereafter.
5. McSweeney failed to report donations even though he was telling MPs he was reporting donations, and even though Labour Together's website also stated that it was declaring donations to the Electoral Commission.
6. McSweeney failed to report donations even after Shabana Mahmood, on Labour Together's behalf, wrote an article for LabourList in February 2020 stating that Labour Together was reporting its donations. At the very time Mahmood wrote the donations, LT was taking in donations it was failing to declare.
7. McSweeney used this undeclared money, to fight an undeclared, covert war on the Labour Party leadership between 2017 and 2020. He also used it to pay for polling which was then fed into Starmer's leadership bid. Materials produced by McSweeney during his time at LT was fed, word-for-word, into Starmer's campaigning material. According to Rachel Wearmouth, McSweeney spent 'every spare moment' during the last six weeks of 2019 to prepare Starmer's leadership bid, during which time McSweeney was drawing a salary from LT.
8. When Labour Together was put under investigation by the Electoral Commission for McSweeney's failure to report donations, McSweeney was consulted by LT's lawyer Gerald Shamash. The email recording this consultation and its contents were published by the Tory Chairman Kevin Hollinrake and have been available in public for a year. The email raises serious questions about whether LT was candid in its responses to the Electoral Commission and, in particular, McSweeney's correspondence with the Commission in 2017/2018 that shows he was aware of the need to report donations. Early correspondence between LT and the Electoral Commission shows that, despite being asked to provide all information of relevance to the Commission's inquiries, LT failed to even mention McSweeney's name, let alone the phone call.
9. In early 2019 McSweeney launched an astroturf campaign called Stop Funding Fake News (SFFN) , with his friend and factional ally Imran Ahmed. It was supported by @SteveReedMP and operated out of the same office as Labour Together. SFFN purposefully set out to 'eviscerate' the economic viability of @TheCanaryUK and to destroy the livelihoods of its journalists, many of whom were long-time members of the National Union of Journalists.
At no stage in its first year operation did SFFN declare its controlling minds. Instead it presented itself as a 'grassroots' campaign of well-meaning activists.
McSweeney and Ahmed tried to take out proper journalism because they saw it as a threat to their political objectives. "Destroy the Canary or the Canary destroys us," is what McSweeney told Labour Together insiders according to Anushka Asthana.
SFFN made promiscuous allegations of antisemitism against The Canary - the antisemitism that McSweeney claims is what drove his factional war on the left - which were found to have no substance when reviewed by a panel of media lawyers and practitioners at media regulator Impress. SFFN repeatedly inferred that The Canary was antisemitic because it run articles quoting left-wing and anti-Zionist Jews disturbed by aspects of the "antisemitism crisis."
10. SFFN also targeted well-known US media sites, which led to McSweeney being directly called out by the US State Department. His colleague, Imran Ahmed, is now sanctioned by the US because the US accuses the company he and McSweeney set up, CCDH, of being part of a global censorship complex.
11. When I started reporting on McSweeney's undeclared money and his secret campaigns, including by taking damning primary documents to the Sunday Times, Labour Together appointed APCO Worldwide to produce a 'package' that would 'proactively undermine' my factually accurate, public interest reporting.
To be clear: APCO were hired to 'proactively undermine' my reporting on McSweeney and his role in Starmer's rise. The intention, as shown in internal docs, was to protect both Starmer and McSweeney's reputations ahead of an imminent general election, while I was trying to warn people about the true nature of this project and it's unlawful origins.
12. APCO produced an insane, ludicrous, highly defamatory report that accused me, my family and my colleagues of being part of a pro-Kremlin network of journalists and speculating that I received hacked documents from Russia. APCO also investigated @Gabriel_Pogrund, with whom I'd collaborated with on the Sunday Times story, making a series of offensive comments about him and his ethnicity. APCO identified a range of other journalists in the UK and US as "persons of interest" to be investigated.
This highly invasive, despicable investigation targeted my work colleagues and my family, including by finding my home address and mapping my personal relationships. Labour Together and its Managing Director, Josh Simons, reported me to the National Cyber Security Centre on the basis of this mad, insane report.
13. Less than a month ago, it was revealed that McSweeney and his buddy Paul Ovenden (later Chief of Strategy at Number 10, who would resign following revelations from my book) were copied into emails about the investigation. McSweeney plainly knew about APCO's investigation. Simons, in one mail, wrote to set up a meeting with McSweeney, Ovenden and APCO's Tom Harper in 'HQ' to discuss the 'Paul Holden report.'
Three days after this meeting I was reported to the NCSC, along with my colleagues and family members. Emails show Simons was coached in how to make a 'crime report' about me to the NCSC.
14. The APCO/Labour Together scandal was so ugly and so damning that Labour Together has been forced to change its name. It also led to the resignation of Josh Simons as a Junior Minister. The Speaker of the House has supported calls for a Parliamentary inquiry into Labour Together.
15. Josh Simons thereafter stepped aside as the MP for Makerfield in order to make way for Andy Burnham, the incoming PM who has displaced McSweeney's man, Starmer. There is a straight and clear line between attempts to protect McSweeney from scrutiny in 2024 and Starmer's resignation in 2026.
So, to make this clear: there was a massive scandal because plans were put in motion to stop questions being asked about McSweeney's unlawful failure to declare money... and now the public broadcaster is failing to ask McSweeney questions about the money. Has the media learnt nothing from the Mandelson scandal about what happens when you don't properly scrutinise political actors?
And here's some things McSweeney and Robinson did talk about, but which doesn't bear scrutiny:
1. Starmer didn't just take some suits and glasses as 'freebies' during the election campaign. He took over £100k in freebies between 2021 and 2024, more than every Labour leader since Tony Blair combined. In addition to free clothes, Starmer took football tickets, tickets to watch the horse racing, and free holiday accommodation for his family from a billionaire. One of his football freebies was donated by a company that had only just been forced to pay a £11m settlement because the installed faulty and potentially flammable cladding on tower blocks in Gosport. Taking these donations means that Starmer had conflicted himself on key areas of policy even before he was elected.
2. Both McSweeney and Robinson quickly collude in claiming that Sir Keir Starmer didn't say that Israel 'has that right' to shut off water, fuel, food and electricity to Gaza. But we've all seen the video, where what Starmer has said is utterly plain. Multiple Ministers went on air to defend the statement thereafter. Does the BBC really think that huge numbers of Muslim councillors immediately left the Party by mistake, because they can't understand plain English?
3. McSweeney has said that Labour Together was 'neutral' during the 2020 leadership election. But Labour Together, and its key associates, have said repeatedly since 2022/2023 that LT backed Starmer's leadership bid. You can find these comments on the Wayback Machine in about two minutes.
4. McSweeney says he never intended to rid the Party of Corbynism. There are now multiple accounts, including from the country's leading political editors and journalists, about how McSweeney crafted and distributed strategy documents, including a plan called 'Operation Red Shield' and a 2017 SWOT analysis, that set out plans to undermine Corbyn's leadership and install a new leader who would 'renew' the Party.
5. This is not the first time that McSweeney has spoken to the media. Instead, it is the first time he has let his comments be attributed to him in public. Multiple journalists have spoken about how he was the source of stories damaging to his opponents. While he was Chief of Staff at Number 10, he was meeting with the editors of the major UK newspapers more regularly than Number 10's own head of comms. We know this because transparency regulations means that these meetings are recorded and can easily found on the gov website. This man has shaped our media discourse, and our political epistemology, in profound and disturbing ways. It is utterly disingenuous to claim that this is the first time he's spoken to the media.
Morgan McSweeney - the “most powerful unelected official in the country” & “a latter-day Thomas Cromwell” - has never given an interview. He has now.
Coming up on Political Thinking on @bbcsounds the man credited with securing Labour’s landslide & blamed for the failures of Starmer’s government.
Richard retweeted
.@MikeTappTweets, nine questions. Each yes or no.
1) Did the International Criminal Court issue arrest warrants on 21 November 2024 against Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare? Yes or no.
2) Is the United Kingdom a state party to the Rome Statute, legally obligated to arrest Netanyahu if he enters British territory? Yes or no.
3) Has the UK government continued to license arms exports to the State of Israel since those warrants were issued? Yes or no.
4) Has the UK government continued diplomatic and political cooperation with the government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu since those warrants were issued? Yes or no.
5) Does the United Kingdom's existing criminal legislation, including the International Criminal Court Act 2001, contain offences applicable to those who provide assistance to persons under ICC arrest warrant for war crimes? Yes or no.
6) Could a UK government minister who has personally and publicly endorsed the continuation of arms exports and political cooperation with a government headed by an ICC indictee face individual legal exposure under those same provisions? Yes or no.
7) Is it the case, as documented by the Campaign Against Arms Trade and Transparency International UK, that the United Kingdom maintains an extensive and ongoing revolving door between government and the arms industry, including the movement of former ministers and senior Ministry of Defence officials into companies that profit from continued UK arms exports to the State of Israel? Yes or no.
8) Does Section 53 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 require the consent of the Attorney General, a political officer of the government, before any prosecution under that Act can be brought? Yes or no.
9) Does the availability of procedural or constitutional defences to government ministers acting in their official capacity alter the underlying factual conduct of those ministers? Yes or no.
If the answer to each of the above is yes, the following should be happening under the United Kingdom's own legal and policy framework.
The Strategic Export Licensing Criteria requires the government not to issue or maintain licences where there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. The government has already made that assessment for around thirty licences.
The ICC arrest warrants, and the charges they contain, materially strengthen the case that this risk applies more broadly. Full suspension of the remaining relevant licences is the only position consistent with the UK's own published rules.
Continued authorisation of exports in these circumstances also raises serious questions about potential ancillary liability under the International Criminal Court Act 2001. An investigation by the Attorney General into ministerial decision-making, with knowledge of the ICC warrants, would be the appropriate next step.
Parliament has a duty to hold individual ministers to account for these decisions.
None of this is happening.
Tell us, Tapp, why none of this is happening?
Replying to @owenjonesjourno
I’m more disturbed that you spent the night thinking about me.
The antisemitism I’ve woken to from the extreme left over night is utterly unhinged, shameful and disturbing.
Richard retweeted
The human species has essentially been transformed into a giant profit-generating machine for corporations.
Under capitalism, humanity exists to serve the interests of the corporation. We are all livestock; beasts of burden used to carry margin expansion forward from quarterly statement to quarterly statement. Enjoyment of life has no value other than the extent to which it can be used to increase the net worth of the shareholders.
That’s why everyone’s so unhappy. We’re not living with purpose. We’re not working together to build a better world and a better future, we’re just pulling levers to turn gears to make the arrow line go up on the graph in the conference room. It’s a hollow, pointless way for people to live.
It makes our whole culture vapid and soulless.
Music is made to be as profitable as possible, which means giving it the broadest possible appeal using formulaic song structure calculated to cause a chemical response in the largest number of human brains.
Movies are designed to draw the largest possible box office revenue at the lowest possible risk to studios and investors, often by just rehashing a movie that’s already proven successful in the past or by slapping together a story about an IP with pre-existing mass appeal.
Food is made to be fast and addictive rather than nourishing.
Healthy human connection has been commodified as social media intertwines with friendships and dating apps insert themselves into the development of romantic relationships.
Human sexuality is being warped and twisted as internet porn normalizes violence and degradation for the maximum number of clicks.
Attention and engagement have been monetized, creating an information ecosystem dominated by conflict and gossip designed to appeal to our baser instincts.
Advertisement is injected into every possible corner of our waking sensory experience, with any available space where the eye might rest or the ear might listen being flooded with psychological manipulation compelling us to consume. They’ll start running commercials in our dreams the instant they have the technology to do so.
You spend eight hours at the office working to generate corporate profits, then you come home and consume products to profit other corporations. You need your beer and snacks to unwind, your streaming services and social media to distract your mind from the stress of it all, your online clothing purchase to try to feel good about yourself, and your prescription drugs to get to sleep at night. People live their entire lives like this.
And that’s those of us who are lucky enough to be living in the global north. In the global south you get wage slavery and exploitation with far more toil, far less relaxation time, and no cheap products made by impoverished workers on other continents with which to comfort yourself.
All of humanity has been roped into this mess. And for what? To make the numbers in some bank accounts increase. To get some green arrows pointing upward on the stock exchange. To enable a few billionaires to buy islands and elections.
All while destroying the biosphere we all depend on for survival.
This, we are told, is the best possible system we could possibly be living under.
I personally do not believe this is true. I personally believe we can have better. Those who benefit from this current arrangement are going to assure us it’s impossible and do everything they can to stop us from changing it, but we do have the means to reclaim the wealth, dignity and happiness that they have stolen from us.
They built this whole machine on our backs. All we need to do is stand up.





























