Skip to content


December 19, 2022
HIGH FLYER: Rangers and Wales winger Rabbi Matondo.

I THOUHT Kim Jung Drakeford had banned Welsh right wingers but among the footballers tasked with supporting and replacing the ageing and ineffective Gareth Bale to help Wales -officially now ranked as the worst team at the World Cup – go on to qualify for major international football tournaments in the future is the decidedly non Cymru-sounding Rabbi Matondo.

RICH PICKINGS: Some squad members may have cashed in.

He was escorted off an Easy Jet aeroplane for “behaving disruptively” on his way back from a Wales training camp in Portugal in 2017 with even the normally colluding, compromised and conspiratorial BBC feeling obliged to report the unfortunate matter.

Born in Liverpool with a father who represented the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Matondo first opted for England at under-15 level but was able to switch to Wales purely, it appears, because his family relocated to Tremorfa in Cardiff when he was a young boy and he was educated at Llanishen High School but also, of course, had the far less enticing prospect of playing for DR Congo, where his father played, somewhere probably very, very far at the back of his mind.

Quite why the family relocated to Cardiff is not known to me and neither is the apparently bizarre and baffling conundrum of how he can play for three different countries and even switch from one to the other entirely at his own fancy. Perhaps, for instance, he will later represent DR Congo at some stage to truly consolidate the globetrotting profile of this richly rewarded journeyman, having played in German, Belgian leagues and for Stoke and Cardiff City.

FIFA, that scrupulously clean and admirable organisation which made it a condition for Argentina’s Lionel Messi lifting the World Cup his team won on Saturday (the only good thing was that France did not win it) that he did so dressed in a frighteningly hideous black Arab bisht or thawl though did not subject him to the further indignity of having to add ghutra and iqal while adopting a begging or praying position to Allah thankfully, has apparently altered the laws that relate to players adopting countries as if they had been born there or had some heritage there.

Their rule change in 2021 enabled Matondo, who did not make the final Wales World Cup squad, to switch from England to Wales, where his realistic prospects of success naturally are advantaged by the fact that there are far fewer competitive sportspeople vying for first team places so he is more easily able to help himself to some of the obscene riches which come with international representation.

In March 2004, FIFA amended its wider policy on international eligibility. This was reported to be in response to a growing trend in some countries, such as Qatar and Togo (surprise, surprise) to naturalise players born and raised elsewhere who have no apparent ancestral links to their new country of citizenship.

An emergency FIFA committee ruling judged that players must be able to demonstrate a “clear connection” to a country that they had not been born in but wished to represent. This ruling explicitly stated that, in such scenarios, the player must have at least one parent or grandparent who was born in that country, or the player must have been resident in that country for at least two years (presumably the loophole enabling Matondo to claim to be Welsh).

Only 12 of the 26 players in the Morocco team which lost to France in the semi-final were born in that country, with their captain born in France. Relatively few, too, in the French team were born in that country.

Matondo, currently a right winger with Rangers in Scotland, is already a company director with a contract until 2026 with the Glasgow team and is reportedly being paid £12,000 a week.

As this explains a business exists with no fewer than 12 different family members all named – none of whom live in Wales, incidentally – and with some interesting offshoots to other businesses, including security.

Matondo is about as Welsh as I am Congolese and I wonder if his decision to play for Wales is mainly a business one but that, of course, would be his business and not mine.

I note that Mr Matondo has complained of a “racist” element to criticism he has received online and that police have acted against perpetrators who allegedly targeted him. But Wales’s Red Wall Dafydd Iwan-led blatantly reactionary, rebellious Welsh language Yma O Hyd zealots inspired by nationalist extremists and fanatics emphasise a history and heritage which Mr Matondo appears to have little to no lived experience of through no fault of his own. Would he not have been just the kind of person moving into Wales had he been born earlier in the sixties and seventies Iwan would have been exercised by?

It is perfectly reasonable, however, for us to question his credentials and wonder what Wales is getting out of the deal if he is making no contribution from his growing wealth to this nation in the way of taxes and actual input and support without any reference whatsoever to his colour.



December 16, 2022

I’VE DECIDED to boycott the Boxing Day shoot at Sandringham this Christmas after taking soundings from Meghan Markle and Gary Lineker.

All my guns were lined up, the Barbour jacket polished, my tweed cap mended and I was set to match a fetching black Caldene gilet with some eye-catching lime green Percussion Neoprene wellington boots if the ground was really soggy underfoot when bagging birds.

“It’s all about races with that lot” Meg warned me, breaking off from directing another Netflix expose on institutional abuse, bless her, and I wondered if she meant the King George at Kempton or the Welsh Grand National at Chepstow.

Regular readers will, of course, know that Fergie and I usually retire to that secret annex on the estate with a box set of The Crown, some mince pies, a bottle of port, some tasty treats and a few crackers to pull but she called to say even she is not going this year. Andrew is definitely not going.

I wasn’t going to decide until I had spoken to Lineker, a very sound and able man with perfect impeccable judgement about what is right and wrong these days as he would never go anywhere near any rich royal families with money to buy World Cups and even fix matches ensuring mostly Paris St Germain stars owned and paid for obscenely by them won. He very kindly advised me to think of the reputational damage if I was spotted out and about in Sandringham – for me, not for the Royals.

“Yes, Gary,” I said, “just like you did before going to Qatar.” He hung up at that point for some reason or perhaps the line failed. Someone from the BBC then told me he had to go to an important special summit on human rights for gender non-binary, transsexual, and lesbian people and other oppressed minority groups in emerging Muslim countries and the new VAR laws in relation to the offside rule with Alan Shearer and Rio Ferdinand.

All in all, I reckon I’m better off staying away.


December 11, 2022

A MEASUREMENT and classification system relying entirely on ONLY two points, markers or real states/facts without access to others or to more.

Examples include male and female, gay and straight, good and evil, white and black, rich and poor with the option for the first to oppose the second if you replace “and” with “versus”.

Like most words, its definition is not binary but accepts and uses multiple, organically evolved different definitions and uses according to context, taste, time, motivation and an individual user’s political position.

Often employed as a narrative and political device to simplify debate and discussion by containing it strictly within narrow, forbidding and restricting boundaries often enforced by ruling elites for mixed motives not always clearly stated.

Heaven and Hell, God and the Devil offer perhaps the most effective binary measurement of all to direct and divide.

Often used as polar opposites to condemn and consign one while glorifying and rewarding the other, the natural consequences of accepting and being directed and divided by binary measurement is doom and gloom for one and joy and riches for the other. Why, then, use the binary system at all?

And what, some will ask, about the many non-believers, doubters and multiple different existentialists who might not wish to be directed or divided.

The need to eradicate binaries is now clearly integral to political movements in our midst, with increasing pressure to accept their bizarre extensions and adaptations of scientific and religious fundamentals as new “facts”.

How refreshingly postmodern and freeing to be able to claim to be one gender among a myriad of them after being consigned at birth to one or the other because some doctor somewhere said there could only be one or the other, which was verified only with a brief scan of the genitals, for instance.

But what, pray tell, if, in some things, there really are only two points in the measurement system? Life and death strike me as good examples. Do we then find ourselves trapped in a fantasy life of massive deceit and deep descriptive dissembling and despair organised around the needs and demands mainly of political zealots seeking to dismantle and destroy old certainties?


December 5, 2022

“DISCOURSE or dat course? You decide”, is one way of defining this currently influential word which would be mischievously used by mainly white campaigners like me against cancel culture, no-platforming and censorship by mainly black political activists using postmodern theories of human engagement to highlight instances of misogynoir or white entitled oppression based on historical grievance.

But I’m just a privileged white male stale emblem of oppression so anything I might state would merely be emphasising and reinforcing my own privilege, according to this theory of course, so let’s look at a dictionary definition.

Discourse is a written or spoken debate or discussion, put simply and without anything attached to it.

Michel Foucault and the 1960s French philosophers, however, saw the need to de-colonise language to address a hugely significant and massively important issue of POWER in written or spoken debate and their way of doing this was to analyse the covert and overt rules, regulations, customs and conventions which governed them, sometimes, though not always, making one debater, speaker or writer a privileged oppressor (because it is in the news, let us take Lady Susan Hussey as a convenient example) and the other debater, speaker or writer (Let us here take charity founder Ngozi Fulani, with whom Lady Hussey was attempting to engage in a disastrous Buckingham Palace drinks social) an oppressed and discriminated against victim.

Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay point out in their bestselling book Cynical Theories that this unspoken enmity or deep resentment based on historical grievance for alleged or actual trespasses is NOT a good way for any person to start a debate or discussion and (as was the case with Lady Hussey and Ngozi Fulani) never a good way to end one.

Fulani, according to this basic belief among Social Theory scholarship campaigners and advocates, who wish to reconstruct our language and modes of engagement set within this discourse analysis framework to repair and reparate, was in this interaction an obvious symbol or emblem of African/Carribean slavery (far more than she was a person in her own right) who carried with her hurt, pain and anger grounded in her lack of power and purchase, leaving her oppressed and offended against permanently and with no respite.

Posh Lady Hussey, by contrast, a high-profile, landed and entitled, wealthy, privileged member of the white ruling class which held sway over African slaves for centuries, by contrast, was in this interaction an obvious symbol or emblem of landowning, slave owning vicious villainy (far more than she was a person in her own right) who carried with her power, privilege and potential to punish (punishment, I think, is key) grounded in her over-abundant financial, social and intellectual wealth, leaving her oppressing and offending against permanently and with no respite.

Something had to give, of course, because two emblems or symbols of naturally warring and opposing factions or cultures cannot make headway if they continue, theorised Foucault, locked forever in a discourse which unconsciously and/or consciously offends and oppresses one while reinforcing the power and privilege of the other. Something has to change.

Having discarded “white imperial oppressive systems of knowledge” like science (biology and religion which says that only Adam and Eve can produce offspring never Adam and Steve being key) itself, on the grounds that it was just another whip for white to beat black and subject them to a knowledge system specifically designed to control and direct them, we jettison both science and religion, those two basic vital cornerstones of our society, and find ourselves now persistently having to accept postmodernist truths based on discourse analysis grounded in “lived experience”, rather than empirical falsifiable scientific rigour and forensic meticulous inquiry, of oppressed minorities as fact and absolutes in a new secular religion. Our new Biblical truths with fewer people now choosing Christianity.

That, essentially, is the position we currently find ourselves in – a loud, incoherent, viciously vindictive debate where neither person is speaking openly and honestly to each other to find common ground and explore potential alliance – because our social and political engagement is now always, always hopelessly hamstrung by postmodernist discourse theories of historical, colonial, imperial, white on black invasion and oppression which has spread to gender (white hetero males asserting cis-normativity over gender non binary and trans people) and sexual identity (scientific and religious fundamentalists asserting natural procreation as normal and restricting options to change gender which, under an evolved postmodernist fantasy, would be available to all and normalised).

These rigid discourse analysis guidelines motivating many, often black feminist academics, actively now prevent openness and honesty due to the refusal to forgive and forget to heal and help each other being replaced with a frighteningly totalitarian and really rather sinister demand for mandatory guilt and apology very publicly in everything we do, say and write.

Hence, we now have a ruling monarch King Charles – surrounded by servants and “aides” with obscene palaces and land ownership – seeking “discourse” probably to offer apologies and reparations to a black woman who someone within his inner circle has offended merely by enquiring about her ethnic origin, not actually commenting in any way upon it.

If we are prevented actively now from enquiring about ethnic origin because to do so would cause offence in and of itself, we are denying ourselves access to rich historical data while also allowing an offended minority led by those who happen to have conspicuous skin colour characteristics to impose against NOT with us their own oppressive, punishing regime in the apparently perpetual search for apology, repair and reparation which some of us, descendants of horribly oppressed penniless peasants white in colour like myself with little if any privilege or power, feel absolutely no need to enter into so should not be forced into.

An added danger comes with the perverted expansion of postmodernist “discourse” language seeping into our consciousness through willing and enthusiastic supporters in the media and in our universities seeking to normalise this nonsense by expanding the “dis” as in “disinformation” which actively sinisterly presents contrary or opposing evidence, opinion, research and, indeed, any contribution as the negative and malicious, rogue opposite of “information” based overwhelmingly on the fact that it does not agree with so refutes this dogmatic postmodernist discourse analysis approach to life and that, alone, is enough to persuade, for instance, the BBC to hire “disinformation journalists” advising you on key scientific matters by essentially trying to criminalise anything which contradicts or even questions, sometimes, the doctrinal approved narrative such as, for instance, the biomedical solution to viruses.

Science welcomes all information to inform and educate and then be put to a falsifiable hypothesis to see if it holds weight and reliability but these autodidacts first decide what is false BEFORE it is offered for analysis and impose that overtly and scandalously anti-scientific and journalistic stranglehold on everyone by restricting access to wide spectrums, including hostile or confrontational opposition, and criminalising speech and expression, backed most visibly by leftist politicians with a colluding media who gaslight, denigrate, censor and cancel.


December 3, 2022

“AND where are you from, Ngozi?”

“Me? The exotically dressed black woman with a name you would hardly ever find in a phone book even if you scoured it for months?”

“Yes, where are you from?”

“Me? The very obvious political activist with a history of rebel rousing on behalf of black Sistas so the sort of person you never ask questions like that to?”

“Yes, where are you really from?”

“Me? The overtly oversensitive, overtly over offended walking talking incendiary device just waiting to explode publicly the minute anyone with a genuine interest in ethnic heritage asks me the usual question?”

“Yes, where are you really from?”

“Me? The sister from hell with a vindictive vendetta against all white oppressors, particularly conspicuously rich ones in palaces?”

“Yes. Where are you really from?”

“Me? The sinisterly synchronised sister who constructs elephant traps you conveniently always fall into to help me make progress politically in the hood?”

“Yes. Where are you really from? I mean really from?”

“Me? The cleverly connected charity founder with backers and supporters who would abolish monarchy and have you slapped in irons tomorrow?

“Yes. Where are you really from? You know, really, really?”

“Probably a long line of African slaves subjected to odious and horrendous humiliation and debasement by some of the people in ghastly big houses where you really came from who grotesquely lived in the laps of luxury while often enjoying subjecting us to slavery and serfdom at the hands of merciless masters who raped and tortured us.”

“Yes. But where do you really come from? You know, really.”


December 3, 2022

IMAGINE living in a world where incompetence, failure and ineptitude is never penalised but rewarded (so-called experts predict a pandemic will wipe out nearly a million people but the real figure is only a fraction of that). Imagine, also, a world where a privileged political elite gets to decide unilaterally based on those dodgy findings (I still remain sceptical about death certificate evidence and how it is arrived at) what your personal health problems are then gets full authority to inject you with bioscience interventions and subject you to grueling torture rituals whether you want them or not because, they emphasise, doing so is best for the majority and declining would be a selfish anti-social thing for you to do.

Imagine living in a world where the populace is so hopeless and woefully dependent on top-down rules and regulations that they then actively start to compete to be collectively and individually the most authoritarian and draconian with “NO MASK NO ENTRY” devolved governments seizing the political opportunity given under health powers (Sturgeon’s Scots warned of “tsunamis” to scandalously mirror doomsday scenario Hollywood scripts) to subject their own citizens, apparently won over by its “caring” nature with devious public opinion surveys they conduct themselves claiming full enthusiastic support (public health opinion research is hocus-pocus unrepresentative views given by hand-picked people to control and direct), to ghastly torture rituals which brutalise them and they then turn on others who show resistance or refuse to mask and jab as 1930s Germans did the Jews, treating them resentfully as unclean deviants.

Imagine living in a world where a British health secretary – the person entrusted with controlling the system you rely on for your health and wellbeing – helps marshal draconian interventions on your personal freedom – let’s call them I’m Not a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of My Home! – in the name of health and safety which you have no say in but he then breaks his own rules, is disgraced and quits but remains as an MP then reappears in parliament this week bold as brass after helping himself to £400,000 on top of his salary starring on reality TV where lime-lit imbeciles are challenged with mixing effectively while enduring humiliating Japanese torture rituals with live animals and their excrement and some of us actually enjoy watching this sickening spectacle.

This man then goes on to publish a book for cash claiming that health and science chiefs gave government an alarmingly apocalyptic forecast of mass deaths which appears, to me, to be wildly inaccurate, entitling and justifying a draconian totally disproportionate universally enforced reaction with absolutely no cost/benefit assessment either individually or collectively and no consideration either for the individual or for the effect on the individual. The consequent political inquiry (not needed in Wales, apparently) then concentrates almost solely on whether we should have acted in this universally draconian manner sooner to save more lives (which Handsy Hancock promotes largely to save his own skin and to align himself broadly with leftist sympathisers in the liberal centres of power) rather than whether we should have carried out cost/benefit analysis, meaningful qualitative personal examinations to establish accurate data for responses to prevent the needless psychological suffering of everyone, including relatively physically fit people like me, under a punishing regime rather than the more rational shepherding of a small group at real risk.

No, I wouldn’t want to live in that world, either, but tragically I have been forced to in the past three or so years undergoing health interventions which involved a jab in one arm with the other tied behind my back as I feared being denied travel, normal engagement and right of entry while my mental health worsened under neglect and managed decline as vital lifelines are now totally decimated, prompting even Whitty and Vallance to apparently now admit that the consequences of their own strategy are catastrophic.

Ludicrously stupid marshalling of public space with viciously enforced fines for minor trespasses by police which can no longer investigate crime, “safely distanced” queues outside stores which were forced by this political elite to restrict the sale of some “non-essential” goods and arm themselves against the customers as if they ALL were contagious carriers, closed entertainment and exercise facilities like golf courses exactly when we needed to exercise, blocks on travel and refusals to accommodate unless you belonged to a designated “critical care worker” category (a letter from an employer would have been sufficient at hotel receptions, apparently, and who decided if you were “critical” or not?) or have verifiable proof of negative status with menacing new borders and barriers erected between England and Wales to scandalously differentiate one from the other all wreaked ruin.

Chinese people are starting to actively fight back against this oppressive, totalitarian health and safety outrage on personal freedom and the willful, engineered taking away of power from the GP to the state so that we no longer consult a friendly medic but instead report to a masked official, all of us made mewling and meek like wet-nappy infants fearing the smell of our own poop might offend by giant posters everywhere warning against abuse and confrontation to critical care workers in passive-aggressive constant expectation of what would be perfectly reasonable resistance and entirely appropriate assertiveness. Try raising your voice mildly in the surgery now and see what happens.

Boris Johnson and Newport’s own leader Councillor Mudd are not doctors so aren’t fit to involve themselves in my wellness or sickness.

Yet both wrote to me taking a parental, caring tone as if I had suddenly become dependent upon them huddled safely hiding in my own home, the only place where I did not have to queue and was not pressured to cover my mouth and nose but with my movements monitored by political ideologues and wonks at Cardiff Bay on Google maps amid a steady stream of blatantly racist, offensively collaborationist Welsh media coverage which deliberately set ingroups – mainly Drakeford dependents like BBC Wales and nationalists hellbent on further separation from Westminster – against outgroups – mainly English people wandering at will in cars in the Brecon Beacons enjoying the scenery but with no police permission to “invade” our small and getting smaller country.

Doctors, banned by the British Medical Association from backing numerous people who couldn’t wear a mask for legitimate health reasons, were suddenly telephoning me at home to offer me vaccination without ever examining me or assessing qualitatively my own personal level of risk of COVID-19 or, for that matter, properly measuring the effectiveness of the jab and monitoring any side-effects which might include severe heart problems. A coercive jab-and-go service had replaced what was left of our health service and, in the aftermath, we stagger around unable to access vital services because a mandated view that it might be better not to even go outside has been mentally normalised and is routinely still being wielded by the public sector to excuse and explain woeful, inadequate service.

Johnson, whose only other postal communication to my home was an appeal for my vote in 2019 to get Brexit done, set the tone in March 2020 when he said that “I must level with you, the British public. More families, many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time”.

That was a statement of the obvious in general, universal tones (far more people actually were lost early to other causes than COVID-19 and clearly will be in the future) but instead of challenging him to be specific, validate his cleverly meaningless consequence avoiding rhetoric and apply it to the real world, a hopelessly denuded effectively collaborating media entirely bought unconditionally the concept of a real and present danger to the survival of the entire “British family” and enthusiastically spread the message so that we suddenly became part of one family which loved one another and the totally unsuitable detached, permanently wan and pale paragons Whitty and Vallance became a health and science same sex parenting unit for all of us oddly linked to life support machines which made fearful, anxious futures compulsory for all of us because, suddenly, our greatest threat was and still remains psychologically each other.

Away from the media manipulation, however, what actually happened on the ground is that practical people took practical measures individually, often resentfully rejecting nannying in the spirit of wartime death-defying true Brits, and adapted to a new viciously top-down authoritarian mantra which seemed, crucially, to be legitimising a “fear thy neighbour” internal dialogue while actively promoting a false narrative of collectively facing and fighting a threat by relying on state engines of control meant to promote collaboration and communitarianism but failing dismally.

Sadly, the truth on the ground is that voter disengagement and apathy is at very high levels and this, along with mass migration and the consequent very visible adverse move from settled homeowners to permanently mobile renters with less stake or pride in where they actually live has meant that families are less cohesive and united and far less likely to invest in political systems which rely, always, on this manipulative facade of a United Kingdom.

In short, governments and state agents who oppress and control their own citizens – as they have been outrageously in China in a “Zero COVID” public health policy which offends against human rights and dignity – are skating on thin ice. Much, much more crucially, we adorable deplorable true Brits now need to take back control of our own destinies because Whitty and Vallance HAVE NOT GONE AWAY.

I still have the letter sent to me “sincerely” by Jane Mudd and then chief executive of Aneurin Bevan University Health Board Judith Paget which said: “2020 was a very difficult year for everyone. So many of us have lost family members and close friends to coronavirus. All of us have had our lives turned upside down by the pandemic. The situation in Wales is very serious at the moment. Cases of the virus are very high and there is a new, very transmissable strain of coronovirus in the UK, circulating in all parts of Wales. We are all staying at home again to stay safe, save lives and to protect the NHS. But there is a glimmer of hope…” (who on earth really wrote this nonsense?)

That glimmer of hope, of course, was biomedicine in the form of injections of drugs tested on volunteers and designed by boffins in labs to combat disease by altering your body’s immune responses (effectively a firewall to prevent virus which eerily mimicked exactly the terminology and natural procedure of internet software engineers and designers).

At no stage would I expect Councillor Mudd, a lay person with rudimentary qualifications, to suddenly be advising me on the efficacy of biomedical drugs and I would never wish to be reliant on her advice, albeit with an NHS bigwig, on future options for my personal health but in that horrendous period in our history I was reduced to being faintly grateful for her promise that I would get a “credit card-sized NHS Wales immunisation card”. Whoopee! It was only later that I was to discover that I was NOT immune with a meaningless card and plastic tests which were always negative, had no idea and still have no idea if I have ever contracted the virus and still remain deeply dismayed by overt totalitarian over-reach in response to such a relatively slight threat which has, effectively, removed adequate care and treatment from me altogether.

There was no need for us all to stay at home to stay safe, save lives and protect the NHS, just a select group, and any inquiry should nail that lie wielded against the fit majority at the outset or we will spend the rest of our lives living miserably isolated from each other reporting to masked joyless officials with giant posters warning us NOT to resist or assert.


November 28, 2022

EACH week, I will try to feature a different WORD used by grievance-based Social Justice academics to give readers some understanding of the real meaning of the increasingly influential, politically charged, change seeking language they use.

A broad understanding of this postmodern language is crucial to everyone now because it informs and motivates political decision making in evolved societies like ours often without proper understanding or comprehension among readers, listeners and viewers who come across it as, often, they simply do not know what it means.

I am currently reading Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay and regard it as a very well written, clear, concise and lucid essential primer to highlight and explain how leftist Social Justice academics informed by French postmodern philosophers have already changed and re-set our language and attitudes to centre everything on gender, race and identity to the detriment, they assert, of everyone.


It describes a framework or, if you like, a navigable building site for everything to do with discrimination and privilege so we can all fully understand where we stand or fall in this scheme of things. It may prompt you to consider if you are being oppressed or are an oppressor and whether you experience privilege or discrimination.

The word is commonly used as a kind of entirely all-embracing and fully functioning preface to things like feminism so that, for instance, an intersectional feminist will be interested in a more fully understood lived experience of oppression and discrimination than, say, a feminist taking into consideration all factors and will be far more aware and informed about how multiple often subtle factors impact upon minorities unfairly in a colonialist white mostly male supremacist world.

It is an entirely new word which relies on the user fully accepting and embracing the concept that the world IS colonialist white mostly male supremacist, and it was first used by American black feminist legal studies scholars with leading exponent Kimberle Crenshaw credited with using it first.


November 28, 2022

Sign our petition urging Elon Musk to stop banning gender critical voices on Twitter

We’ve started a petition urging Elon Musk to restore the accounts of people expressing gender critical views on Twitter, e.g. the view that sex is biological and immutable and women can’t have penises. We think the number of accounts that have been banned for this reason runs into the hundreds and possibly the thousands. Here is one of the key paragraphs:

Some gender critical accounts have been taken down simply for asserting the view that sex should be defined biologically. Posts such as “Only females get cervical cancer”, “If you have a uterus you will be female”, “If you have periods you are a woman” and “Having a penis is what makes someone male” were all deemed by Twitter to be in violation of the platform’s rules against ‘hateful conduct’. But such views are not hateful. In banning gender critical accounts on the grounds that such views are ‘hateful’ – or banning accounts because they have ‘misgendered’ or ‘deadnamed’ trans people – Twitter is appealing to an imaginary consensus in favour of the view that it is transphobic to define sex as biological and immutable, or that self-declared gender identity should determine access to single sex spaces and services, or that people are entitled to compel others to use their preferred gender pronouns. No such consensus exists, which leads us to conclude that the reason so many gender critical accounts have been banned is because Twitter’s content moderators have taken the side of the transrights activists in this debate. If Twitter is to become the digital town square you want it to be, where free speech is sacrosanct, the moderators must remain above the fray when it comes to matters of ongoing public debate. They should act as holders of the ring, not political combatants.

Please sign the petition and help persuade Twitter’s new owner to lift the ban. You can find the petition here.

New research reveals generational divide on free speech issues

A new report for the think-tank Policy Exchange by FSU Advisory Council member Professor Eric Kaufmann has found compelling evidence that UK schools are becoming sites for indoctrination rather than education (TelegraphTimesUnherd). The report surveyed attitudes among different age groups and found that young people are markedly less liberal than older generations on issues like free speech, democracy and the need for tolerance of dissenting opinions. Specifically:

  • Nearly a third (29%) of 18-24 year-olds say author JK Rowling should be dropped by her publishers for her gender critical views – that figure falls to 10% among adults, and just 3% among those over 50.
  • An equal proportion of young people (38%) agreed and disagreed with the idea of removing Winston Churchill’s statue from Parliament Square because he held racist views – among adults as a whole, 68% disagreed with moving the statue compared to just 12% who agreed.
  • Two in five 18-24 year-olds agree that schools should “teach students that Britain was founded on racism and remains structurally racist today” while 25% disagree – adults as a whole rejected that statement by 53% to 24%.

It’s all too easy to blame ‘perma-offended’ young people for this generational divide, says Madeline Grant (Telegraph). But what about those she describes as “enabling adults”? After all, educationalists have long understood that teaching professionals are important role models, possessed of the capacity to influence the attitudes, values and behaviours of those under their tutelage. So when, say, colleagues of the philosopher Kathleen Stock turn and look the other way as she’s getting hounded on campus by transactivists (Unherd), or when senior academics fire off emails to students that denounce visiting speakers like Dr Helen Joyce and apologise for the “distress” her immutable biological presence on campus may cause (SpectatorTelegraph), or when academics instigate public discussions about how to cancel an early career researcher who has been investigating the various forms of discrimination experienced by gender critical feminists in academia (Spiked), or when… and so on and so forth – in those moments it’s difficult to believe that impressionable young undergraduates aren’t able to spot the moral of the story for anyone who wants to get ahead in life.  

Joanna Williams seems inclined to agree, although the “enabling adults” she’s concerned about aren’t academics, but teachers (Spiked). So-called ‘activist teaching’ has been on the rise for a while (GuardianSpikedTelegraph), but what the Policy Exchange report reveals is that the politicisation of children’s education is beginning to have an impact on the views of young people. Polling commissioned for the report reveals that six out of 10 school leavers say they were either taught about ideas associated with neo-Marxist critical race theory or heard about them from an adult at their school. These include concepts like white privilege, systemic racism and unconscious bias. Slightly more – 65% – say they either encountered the concept of patriarchy or the idea that there are multiple genders from adults at school.

As to what we should do about it, Joanna thinks it’s high time activist teachers had some schooling of their own – the crucial idea that none of them seem to have grasped, she says, is that conveying subject knowledge and pushing a particular political view are not the same thing when you’re a salaried, public-sector worker in a western, liberal democracy.

Not that that would solve the problem overnight. As she readily concedes, there’s the rest of the ‘woke-pedagogic-complex’ to think about. Because behind every local, pink-haired, non-binary teacher forcing children to take the knee are the academics writing the school curriculum and textbooks, the university educationalists training each successive generation of teachers, the journalists and campaigners agitating for their own pet issues to gain a foothold in the classroom, and the people stocking the school library and putting together online resources for teachers and children alike.

Employee activists thwarted in bid to cancel academic conference

An academic conference in Glasgow was nearly axed at the last minute because LGBTQ+ venue workers were so upset at the thought of the event’s likely content that they “weren’t willing” to come to work (Christian InstituteScottish Daily ExpressTimes).

The ‘Education not Indoctrination’ event was originally due to take place last Saturday at Civic House at the city’s Speirs Locks. Delegates including Dr Stuart Waiton (Abertay University), Emeritus Professor Frank Furedi (University of Kent) and Dr Penny Lewis (Dundee University) were set to debate the ways in which woke ideology is taking over schools and universities, and often has a ‘chilling effect’ on those who dissent from it.

Speaking to the Scottish Daily Express, Dr Waiton said: “This attempt to cancel the event is illustrative of the dangerous and deeply intolerant times we live in, where any discussion or disagreement about issues like race and gender are silenced. The whole point of this conference is to have a discussion about some of the dogmatic and ideological developments in schools, developments that clash with the idea of an open, liberal education for all.”

Jointly organised by education campaign group Hands Up Scotland, alongside The Christian Institute, Academics for Academic Freedom, The Battle for Ideas, Stand By Me (Scotland) and For Women Scotland, the conference comes at a crucial time for schools, particularly in Scotland, where the SNP-led government is at the vanguard of imposing woke values on society.

Take Education Scotland’s forthcoming Racial Literary Programme, for instance, with its content on intersectionality, anti-racism and “racial microaggressions” (Critic). Then there’s the General Teaching Council of Scotland’s renewed professional standards document, which states that “Scottish teachers must demonstrate professional values of social justice”. There’s also the Scottish Government’s new sex-education curriculum, which will expose very young children to overtly sexualised material and risks normalising underage sexual activity (Herald). And there’s also a new LGBTQ+ vocabulary (cisgender, transgender, bisexual, non-binary, genderfluidity) being taught in schools, and new government guidance on ‘Supporting Transgender Pupils in Schools’, which advises teachers not to question a child’s desire to transition (Times).

Important issues, you might think. But not everyone agrees that any of this should be up for debate.

In an email sent a few days before the event was supposed to take place, Agile City, a “community interest company” which operates the Civic House venue, emailed the organisers claiming that the conference’s programme had upset the values of protesting LGBTQ+ staff who would refuse to come to work if the event went ahead. Agile City said: “The content of the event has just been highlighted to us via your online marketing, and through further research to be in opposition to the values held by our team and staff members who comprise part of the LGBTQ+ community. As such the staff who were booked to manage the event are not willing to work. Without staffing in place, we cannot host your event.”

What the whole affair reveals, according to Rob Lyons, “is the brittleness of woke thinking” (Spiked). It is one thing to be passionate about particular issues, he says. But it’s something else entirely to think that the mere airing of a different point of view is a threat, in and of itself.

Thankfully, the story has a happy ending – conference organisers were able to find another venue and the event went ahead at the city’s Tron Church.

Women’s rights campaigner attacked by pro-trans activists now threatened with arrest for ‘hate crime’​

Sussex Police has threatened a women’s rights group founder with arrest in connection with something she said at a feminist rally two months ago unless she ‘voluntarily’ agrees to be interviewed at a police station. Ironically, she and other protestors were attacked by transrights activists at the rally (Mail).

Kellie-Jay Keen, whose online campaigning name is ‘Posie Parker’, was told by a Sussex police officer that a complaint had been made alleging she had used “words or behaviour to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation”.

Before the event in question – a Let Women Speak rally held in Brighton on September 18th – Kellie-Jay was sent threatening messages, including some advising trans activists to “fight her by any means you see fit”. Officers arrested two people at the rally after masked pro-trans campaigners clashed with attendees (SpikedCritic). It prompted JK Rowling to tweet: “I see the Be Kind brigade are once more hiding behind their black masks, throwing smoke bombs, screaming ‘scum’ at women speaking up for their sex-based rights.”

Ms Keen has now released a recording of the phone call she received from Sussex Police, in which she was threatened with arrest (which you can listen to in full here). Pressed by her as to what the allegation was, the police caller replied: “The crime is use of words or behaviour to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. It’s gonna be a voluntary interview so you can give your side of the story as well.”

But when the officer is asked exactly how voluntary the interview is, she replies: “If you don’t attend then we will potentially be looking at getting Wiltshire Police to come and arrest you so they can come and interview you themselves.”

Sussex Police has found itself at the centre of a series of controversies regarding gender and women’s rights and has previously been described as being “at the forefront of ‘woke’ politics” (Telegraph).

The force was subject to ridicule in 2017 after a sergeant warned high street stores that “feminine care” signs on women’s sanitary products breached gender equality rules. More recently, Sussex Police unveiled plans for a system where criminals can be recorded as having no gender or other identities (Independent).

In 2020, the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner trumpeted the inclusion of Sussex Police in Stonewall’s Top 100 LGBT inclusive employers.

Earlier this year, approximately three dozen officers, including Chief Constable Jo Shiner, celebrated this year’s Brighton LGBTQ+ Pride event by posing in rainbow colours and tweeting “Have a ‘fabuloso’ time!” (Breitbart).

In September, the force was criticised by Home Secretary Suella Braverman for “playing identity politics and denying biology” after its Twitter account leapt to the defence of a male paedophile who identified as a woman and who had been misgendered online, warning social media users that they could be committing a hate crime and suggesting that “if you have gender critical views you wish to express this can be done on other platforms or your own page, not targeted at an individual” (SpectatorTelegraph).

Free Speech Cambridge book launch event – register for tickets here!

Free Speech Cambridge, an independent group of free speech enthusiasts in the Cambridge area, would like to invite FSU members to a friendly pre-Christmas drinks and celebration at the Pottery Shed in the Waterman pub in Cambridge (CB4 3AX) on Tuesday 6th December. The occasion will also be a book launch for Jerome Booth’s ‘Have We All Gone Mad?’ – a timely investigation into the rise of groupthink. Please arrive from 6pm with the talk starting at 7pm. There will be plenty of time for Q and A, general chat and socialising. Copies of Jerome’s book will be on sale, so please bring cash (actual cash) if you’d like to buy one. To confirm attendance, for further information and to join Free Speech Cambridge’s mailing list, please contact


November 25, 2022

“IF I was on that field, I’d have a sit down” lesbian icon Jess Fishlock said on the BBC Radio Wales commentary for Wales’s embarrassing 2-0 loss to Iran at the World Cup…

Well, she couldn’t have done worse than the men and may even have added something from a seated position, particularly if she was kitted out in rainbow colours and carrying a slogan or two to reflect the new progressive Cymru.

She could have formed a seated midfield triangle consisting of lesbians and women of colour strategically designed to let the opposition score to show Wales is a country which prides itself on its tolerance, gratitude and deep respect for other nationalities by letting in more than even Drakeford and Price would allow. She might even have scored a few own goals from a seated position, too, maybe to highlight issues around mental and physical disabilities. Heck, why not let her change the colour of the ball to black or a sort of rusty brown to really seal the deal.

She was most vocal and effective after the match in discouraging phone-in callers – one complaining about £15 for a pint of beer in Qatar – from voicing their obvious disappointment and disgust at how such richly remunerated sports people could perform so abysmally as if everyone should just be grateful for whatever the footballers did (a general and universal approach at BBC Wales, where robust criticism and fierce confrontational inquiry and assertion is totally lost in a sea of deep denial, political paralysis and paralysing compromise).

Indeed, Cardiff-born Wales women’s soccer team striker Fishlock seemed, in her commentary, to be shielding more than exposing players in a largely protective way and her comments seemed more grounded in west coast psychotherapy for “oppressed minorities” than in ruthlessly assertive Brian Clough-style winner takes it all bollockings and blistering barricades.

Would Fishlock drop Bale and Ramsey for the England game, she was asked, and answered that she didn’t know. Did she know anything or is asking a direct question and expecting a direct answer itself an oppressive micro-aggression now?

She was there, of course, to represent women but her utterances seemed mildly moronic, completely gutless and flat-footed with frequent uses of “don’t” when she should have used “doesn’t” to be grammatically correct and send the right message to our children.

Owen Money, yet another ancient over-rated relic overpaid and over here who doesn’t any longer cut it, took over the reins from the sports team to “cheer us up” after the match. That, by itself, would be enough to make the red and rainbow wall jump off a bridge.

This was a woefully inept performance by a Dad’s Army past their sell-by-date which I didn’t see but heard on the radio.

The elephant in the room, of course, is the disastrous appointment in 2018 of Ryan Giggs as Wales manager by the Welsh FA. Poor Rob Page was given first a caretaker role before getting the job but he was never a first choice and would not, ordinarilly, have got a sniff.

The preparation for this World Cup needs, now, to be properly assessed and evaluated to establish how effective it was then a completely new regime introduced quickly to jettison underperforming veterans and hopefully uncover some new talent and build a long-term strategy for success.

Just don’t ask Jess Fishlock to decide. She’d have to sit on it for a while.

But let us not, under any circumstances, have a victory parade through the centre of Cardiff ending at the Senedd with Dr Doom embracing these players and pinning silly medals on them in a glorious bunfight with lots of icing and cakes.

The boys of 58 genuinely definitely did deserve that but this lot definitely does not.


November 22, 2022

PROFESSOR Laura McAllister was asked not to wear a rainbow-coloured hat to virtue signal on behalf of a grievance-based LGBTQ+ minority while supporting Wales at the World Cup in Qatar so has now accused FIFA, the game’s governing body, of foul play.

Now if Professor McAllister knocked on my door seeking entry wearing a rainbow-coloured hat leading what she calls the Rainbow Wall – angry homosexual and trans people supporting a menacing form of far-left Social Justice oppression and totalitarianism in our universities and public spaces far, far more than they support Wales – I would politely ask her to remove any symbols of virtue which I happen to not consider virtuous.

Hopefully, she would comply because it would be my house and not hers. If she later publicised the exchange between her and I, accusing me of all manner of human rights abuses and branding me a Nazi on my own doorstep, I would be – yet again – helpless and hopeless in an “inclusive” country which actively excludes me.

The same might happen in a mosque here in Wales. She was in a Sharia law Islamic state, for God’s sake, where society is structured according to religious tenets which believe in silly little fundamental scientific truths like two women in bed together cannot produce offspring and neither can two men.

Indeed, they also believe that promoting the fantasy that they can and living in a world where we routinely indulge them to normalise same sex marriage and family life while reconstructing our entire system to advantage them at our own expense is obscene.

They also strongly reject the willfully warped theories of Professor Judith Lorber to make gender – not biological sex – central and reject gender and sexuality as social constructs used by hierarchical white Christian European alpha male oppressors to act in a Foucauldian sense of a permeating grid, which has prompted an outbreak of gender bending and breaking with even young kids declaring themselves trans or non-binary.

Regular readers will know that Professor McAllister and the radical lesbian feminist movement she appears to lead is growing like topsy in the decision and policy making chambers in Wales, allowing her to make statements with genuine righteous indignation appearing to represent us all: “I pointed out that FIFA had made lots of comments about supporting LGBT rights in this tournament, and said to them that coming from a nation where we’re very passionate about equality for all people, I wasn’t going to take my hat off.”

She wasn’t representing me and I would strongly reject her version of “equality” and would actively “queer” it, if I may borrow from some of the language used by this perverted postmodern Queer Theory academic activist pressure group centred at universities on the west coast of America.

She is right to state that we Welsh are very passionate about equality of opportunities (where everyone gets an equal chance to win in an open and transparent process) but we are very passionately opposed to what she calls “equality” as hers is equality of outcome (a totally different thing to equality of opportunities).

Equality of outcome – the present system crippling democracy – seeks to actively engineer the open competitive process at the outset for jobs, contracts, political representation and many other things to deliberately unfairly favour representatives of minority groups so that, for instance, speaking Welsh and being homosexual become, in and of themselves, very significant advantages in the market place over heterosexual English only speakers which can be wielded as assets for a person seeking to cash in on the current political demand to bring about outcomes considered more pleasing to the ideological political pressure groups and extremists.

This leads to constant glaring examples of gay Welsh speaking people being selected for posts and positions NOT purely on their ability to do a job in an open and transparent process but based on the boxes they tick with ideological political pressure groups.

The smaller the arena, the worse this is and Wales is a small and hugely incestuous arena.

But the main issue now is around the motivations of many of the people who go to football matches and now actively seek to impose upon others their values and ethics with really rather odd and tone deaf passive aggressive ideological stunts and symbols like a team of male footballers, none of whom are gay, wearing rainbow armbands.

Was Professor McAllister there as a guest of the Qataris or of FIFA or did she fund the trip herself?

Things are incredibly financially tight and worrying here in Wales, so how did Professor McAllister and all these other bricks in the red and rainbow wall manage to find the cash to go and support Wales in the World Cup?