Rineke Schram retweeted
“Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote the following response:
A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?' If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.
Rineke Schram retweeted
🔴 Middle East Emergency Appeal
Since the U.S.–Israeli airstrikes on Iran, thousands of families have been forced to flee their homes as the violence escalates.
If you can, please donate to help our doctors continue delivering lifesaving healthcare ➡️ tinyurl.com/yh7w85d8
This:
"Erasing women and women-specific language and needs based on their sex is not only wrong, but also demeaning, regressive and constitutes one of the worst forms of violence that women and girls can experience," @UNSRVAW Reem Alsalem told the @UN Human Rights Council.
#HRC59
Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women & girls
Rineke Schram retweeted
Anyone trying to figure out how to apologise: Tom Harris demonstrates how to do it. See below👇
Donate to Unicef 2023 unicef.org.uk/donate/
Rineke Schram retweeted
Who would like to see Professor Robert Winston back on TV? 🙋♂️🙋♂️🙋♂️
Plus the BBC owes him a apology!
Rineke Schram retweeted
BREAKING NEWS:
Judge John Coughenour came out with the following statement after issuing a preliminary injunction on Trumps executive order for ending birthright citizenship.
"It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals.
The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain…
There are moments in the world's history where people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers, where were the judges?" Coughenour said.
"In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today."
Thank you, Judge Coughenour!
RT if you agree with him! 💙
Rineke Schram retweeted
A lot of people are portraying USAID as some sort of bastion of looney DEI excesses. Let’s take a look at what the sudden arresting of their operation is doing to global health. Please read the thread (my thread, not Ryan James’):
🚨WORLD’S RICHEST MAN BUYING OUR DEMOCRACY🚨Elon Musk is set to pump £78m into Nigel Farage’s party—a sum that would allow Reform to flood our politics with targeted ads. Add your name to the petition! 38d.gs/n3se
Rineke Schram retweeted
🚨‼️MUST WATCH and SHARE before Elon Musk bans it:
Since US media won’t tell you, UK activists, Led By Donkeys, dropped this video on how Elon Musk and his use of X helped get Donald Trump elected.
@ByDonkeys
cc: @BryanDawsonUSA
It's a challenging time, but we have the power to make a difference. We're calling on PM Keir Starmer to take a bold stance against Donald Trump and ensure he is held accountable for his actions. Will you join thousands of others and sign today? 38d.gs/xgav
Rineke Schram retweeted
Pleased to announce I will be standing in next year’s elections, to be President @RCObsGyn. Thanks for all your support thus far.
Rineke Schram retweeted
You haven't seen complexity in art until you've seen this 600-year-old painting.
It's so detailed that modern medicine has been able to diagnose this man's exact type of blindness.
And that's where things get mind-bendingly strange — this whole thing is an illusion... 🧵
Rineke Schram retweeted
Getting sick of repeating this so I’m going to just put it into one long post/maybe thread that I can share with people.
No-one has been jailed for harmless social media posts during the riots. Every single person who was jailed broke the law. They were not jailed for ‘jokes’ or ‘silly posts after a couple of glasses of wine’. They were jailed for publishing written material online to stir up racial hatred, for inciting violence, or for breaking other related laws.
In the UK, free speech is protected, but there are clear limits when it comes to posting violent threats or inciting racial hatred online. Several laws ensure that this kind of harmful content isn’t just shrugged off as "free speech”.
Under section 18 of the public order act 1986, it’s a crime to use "threatening, abusive, or insulting words" with the intent to stir up racial hatred, or even if it’s likely to do so. This means you can be arrested for posting something that could incite hatred, even if no one actually acts on it. It’s still a crime.
Then there’s the serious crime act 2007 (specifically sections 44 and 45), which makes it illegal to encourage or assist a crime online, including violence. Again, the key here is that your intent or the likelihood of causing a crime is enough to get you into legal trouble, even if the crime doesn’t actually happen. It’s still a crime.
The communications act 2003 (section 127) also plays a role, making it an offense to send messages that are “grossly offensive” or “menacing”. So, if you post something that’s threatening or meant to harass, you can face charges regardless of whether the threat is carried out. It’s still a crime.
Lastly, the new online safety act put in place in 2024 (before Labour were in power, for you ‘two-tier Keir’ lot) ramps up accountability, requiring platforms to remove harmful content and holding people responsible for posting it. Elmo doesn’t seem to care about this right now, but it’s still in UK law.
Here are three examples of people locked up, and why they were locked up:
1) Jordan Parlour: 28 year old from Leeds, jailed for 20 months after he posted on Facebook urging people to attack a hotel housing asylum seekers. His posts were intended to incite racial hatred and violence, leading to his arrest and conviction under the public order act 1986. He pleaded guilty.
2) Wayne O’Rourke: 35 year old from Lincoln, sentenced to three years in prison for using his large social media following to stir up racial hatred. He posted inflammatory content encouraging others to join in anti-immigrant violence, which led to his arrest and then sentencing. His arrest was not for anti-establishment content, that was simply mentioned in the case. The charges were very clear and he also pleaded guilty.
3) Tyler Kay: 26 year old from Northampton, sentenced to 38 months for his social media activity. He reposted messages calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire, which the court found to be a clear attempt to incite racial violence. He initially contested the charges, but evidence shown in court proved his guilt, and he was convicted.
The first two were not forced to plead guilty, the evidence was clear. It’s nothing to do with discounted sentences, and there’s no evidence to suggest it was, they just didn’t have a leg to stand on.
In the UK, free speech doesn’t mean you can say anything without consequences. The law draws a line when speech becomes harmful, especially when it threatens violence or incites hatred. The law in the US is different because the first amendment offers more protection, even for hate speech, unless it directly incites imminent lawless action. The UK focuses more on preventing harm before it happens, recognising that words can have serious real world consequences.
Rineke Schram retweeted
"We, the undersigned, are deeply disturbed that populist messages particularly targeting Muslims have gained traction among significant numbers of social media accounts associated with the gender critical movement."
Read and sign our statement below.
gcantifarright.wordpress.com…
Rineke Schram retweeted
My ‘shame of the week’ award goes to @wesstreeting, the UK Health Secretary. He said Wednesday that people who are racist to NHS staff in health settings “can and should” be turned away from care.
That prompted the Royal College of Nursing to update its guidance on refusing to treat a patient to include “racism” for the first time.
I guess everyone has forgotten the outrage in 2010 when a German surgeon refused to operate on a man who was already anesthetized when he noticed a swastika tattooed on the patient’s upper arm. Or the best examples of the Hippocratic Oath as the case in 2020, in the middle of COVID, when a California Jewish ER physician, Black nurse, and Asian respiratory therapist, did not hesitate in treating a patient who arrived by ambulance and whose body was covered in tattoos, including a large swastika on his chest.
Are Muslim doctors going to decide not to treat patients who served in the IDF? Can Jewish doctors turn away patients with a Hamas or ISIS symbol? Are there health care providers in the UK, who are guided by the Health Secretary’s declaration, who would refuse to treat right winger Tommy Robinson?
This is a very slippery slope when it comes to medical treatment.























