Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

3,485,853 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

When you haven’t seen your man for 30 minutes
0:20

Sensitive content

When you haven’t seen your man for 30 minutes

KissLover

787,734 Aufrufe • vor 22 Stunden

You want to know what's worse than incompetence? Knowing the truth and burying it anyway. They knew. That's the bit nobody is saying. They knew. Two days after Henry died Hampshire Police secretly recorded Digwa in a police van speaking Punjabi to his brother. Digwa admitted stabbing Henry. Discussed claiming self defence. Made zero mention of racial abuse. Not one word. Hampshire Police had that tape. They knew Digwa was lying about the racist attack. They had the evidence. They had his own words and then tried to smear Henry as the aggressor anyway. Three days after his death their statement read “it was reported two men had been assaulted by an unknown man.” Henry was the unknown man. The boy bleeding out on the street. They flipped it. Family complained. Statement changed. Then police told the family their NEXT update would again infer Henry was the initial aggressor. His family had to fight them a second time. While grieving their murdered son. Then during the trial Hampshire tried to issue a statement telling the public to stop talking about it online. Calling it disinformation. The CPS had to step in. Told them they were about to collapse their own murder case. This is the force that handcuffed a dying boy. Missed the murder weapon twice. Had a secret tape proving the killer lied. And still tried to bury Henry's name. That's not incompetence. That's a machine protecting itself. At the expense of a dead boy's reputation and three officers are still on active duty. Not suspended. Treated as witnesses. To their own actions. Hampshire Police didn't just fail Henry on that street. They kept failing him for six months after he died.

BanksyCat

516,220 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

The EU has mastered one trick: When it wins, it calls it free trade. When China wins, it calls it overdependence. For decades, European cars, appliances, luxury goods, chemicals, machinery, and high-end consumer products entered the Chinese market. China did not cry that Europe was “distorting” its market or creating “dependency.” China competed. China learned. China upgraded. But the moment Chinese industries became competitive, Europe suddenly discovered “strategic risk.” Solar panels? Europe blocked and punished Chinese solar for years with tariffs and trade barriers. Did that revive Europe’s own solar industry? No. It only made Europe’s energy transition more expensive until it eventually had to reopen the door. Huawei and ZTE? Europe followed Washington’s pressure campaign, ripped out Chinese telecom infrastructure it had already deployed, spent more money, delayed its own networks, and called that “security.” Energy? Europe chose geopolitical obedience, cut itself off from cheap Russian energy, raised its own industrial costs, became more dependent on the U.S., and then watched its companies move across the Atlantic under American subsidies and tariffs. But somehow the problem is still China. Please. Europe’s crisis was not created by Chinese overcapacity. It was created by European complacency, American dependency, ideological industrial policy, expensive energy, and decades of mistaking moral lectures for competitiveness. Now Chinese industries are faster, cheaper, more integrated, and more efficient — from EVs to batteries, solar, electronics, ports, logistics, and manufacturing ecosystems. So Europe invents new language: “Diversification.” “De-risking.” “Overdependence.” “Fair competition.” But strip away the diplomatic costume, and it is just protectionism with Brussels paperwork. China did not force Europe to deindustrialize itself. Europe made its choices. It followed Washington. It sanctioned its own energy base. It taxed its own consumers. It slowed its own innovation. It lectured China while China built. And now it wants China to pay for Europe’s failure to compete. No. China-EU trade is not a charity program for declining European industries. If Europe wants competitiveness, it should build it. Not rename protectionism as “diversification” and expect China to applaud.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

42,978 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag