Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Popper edging my very greasy schlong. Schlong needs to make a comeback. #schlong #Popperbating #popperbate #poppers #masturbating #masturbate #Penis #Albolene #popperpenis #exposed #exposure #fullyexposed

JasonsALTaccount

12,605 subscribers

68,342 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

NSFW #schlong #Popperbating #popperbate #poppers #masturbating #masturbate #Penis #Albolene #popperpenis #exposed #exposure #fullyexposed

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

2 months ago I was honoured to receive ‘excellence in public health communication’ award at the Global Health Awards held in the House of Commons. I made it very clear in my keynote speech & interview with Zee TV that the covid mRNA gene technology had overall done more harm than good. It was attended by leaders in the field of medicine, healthcare industry and politicians. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive including from Drs who were hearing about the evidence of independent reanalysis of Pfizer & Moderna trials for the first time. In the first part of my speech I explained that there was a deliberate strategy of fear put out from Matt Hancock to ‘frighten the pants off the public’ exposed in leaked WhatsApp messages from Isabel Oakeshott. The aim was to make the public more compliant to authoritarian rule. In addition deliberate suppression of facts that threaten the bottom line of big Pharma from the public and smearing those who expose it are two mechanisms of how corporations exert their power therefore no one is immune to medical misinformation that damages individual and population health. As I alluded to in my talk on Saturday at Reform UK we will not be able to resolve the healthcare crisis and fix the #NHS until we understand and then correct all the ways scientific evidence is distorted by pathologically self interested commercial entities. The legacy media needs to wake up. This is not a conspiracy theory ; these are cold hard facts being taken increasingly seriously by a public that is understandably losing their trust.

2 months ago I was honoured to receive ‘excellence in public health communication’ award at the Global Health Awards held in the House of Commons. I made it very clear in my keynote speech & interview with Zee TV that the covid mRNA gene technology had overall done more harm than good. It was attended by leaders in the field of medicine, healthcare industry and politicians. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive including from Drs who were hearing about the evidence of independent reanalysis of Pfizer & Moderna trials for the first time. In the first part of my speech I explained that there was a deliberate strategy of fear put out from Matt Hancock to ‘frighten the pants off the public’ exposed in leaked WhatsApp messages from Isabel Oakeshott. The aim was to make the public more compliant to authoritarian rule. In addition deliberate suppression of facts that threaten the bottom line of big Pharma from the public and smearing those who expose it are two mechanisms of how corporations exert their power therefore no one is immune to medical misinformation that damages individual and population health. As I alluded to in my talk on Saturday at Reform UK we will not be able to resolve the healthcare crisis and fix the #NHS until we understand and then correct all the ways scientific evidence is distorted by pathologically self interested commercial entities. The legacy media needs to wake up. This is not a conspiracy theory ; these are cold hard facts being taken increasingly seriously by a public that is understandably losing their trust.

Dr Aseem Malhotra

52,332 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

FREE ADVICE! My brother, Pastor Kanyari, pole sana for the loss of your children’s mother. We mourn the passing of Betty Bayo, and we stand with you and her current husband, who is feeling this pain even more deeply during this difficult time. But my brother, allow me to speak with honesty and love. This video you have shared online, where you are seen touching your daughter in a way many people have interpreted as inappropriate, has raised serious concern. Even if your intention was innocent and meant to show affection, not everyone will understand that. The internet judges quickly and harshly especially when a child is involved. In our African culture, such actions toward a young girl are taken very seriously. This is an innocent child who depends on you for protection, not exposure. As fathers, we must shield our children from anything that could harm them now or follow them later in life. And let me add this respectfully: you need to stop posting everything online. Sometimes it comes across as clout chasing, especially during sensitive times. Not everything needs to be recorded or shared publicly. Some matters require privacy, silence, and dignity. If this child was already exposed to the internet like street families whose lives are already in the public eye that would be different. But this is a protected child, coming from a family that values privacy. Exposing her unnecessarily puts her at risk of future internet scrutiny and emotional torture. Let us protect our children. They deserve safety, dignity, and privacy in both the physical world and the online space. May God give you wisdom, strength, and comfort during this difficult season.

FREE ADVICE! My brother, Pastor Kanyari, pole sana for the loss of your children’s mother. We mourn the passing of Betty Bayo, and we stand with you and her current husband, who is feeling this pain even more deeply during this difficult time. But my brother, allow me to speak with honesty and love. This video you have shared online, where you are seen touching your daughter in a way many people have interpreted as inappropriate, has raised serious concern. Even if your intention was innocent and meant to show affection, not everyone will understand that. The internet judges quickly and harshly especially when a child is involved. In our African culture, such actions toward a young girl are taken very seriously. This is an innocent child who depends on you for protection, not exposure. As fathers, we must shield our children from anything that could harm them now or follow them later in life. And let me add this respectfully: you need to stop posting everything online. Sometimes it comes across as clout chasing, especially during sensitive times. Not everything needs to be recorded or shared publicly. Some matters require privacy, silence, and dignity. If this child was already exposed to the internet like street families whose lives are already in the public eye that would be different. But this is a protected child, coming from a family that values privacy. Exposing her unnecessarily puts her at risk of future internet scrutiny and emotional torture. Let us protect our children. They deserve safety, dignity, and privacy in both the physical world and the online space. May God give you wisdom, strength, and comfort during this difficult season.

Geoffrey Mosiria

133,968 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

I was on CNN this evening for a conversation with Bianna Golodryga on the lapsing of the Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) on September 30th, the implications for Africa & what the road ahead. My key points: · AGOA lapsing & its implications is a lot more nuanced than has been painted so far because the landscape is not homogenous. Jurisdictions like Lesotho & Madagascar (where exports to the US account for 19.0% & 16.0% of all exports, respectively) are most exposed. The mid-segment (where exports to the US as a proportion of total exports are in the mid to high single digits like Kenya, Ghana, South Africa & Mauritius) is where the bulk of countries fall. Then there are economies like Tanzania & Gabon where the proportion is in low single digits & the exposure is minimal · The lapsing of AGOA will disproportionately impact Africa’s light-manufacturing exports to the US. Here we are talking apparel & agro-food products, such as fish & dried fruits. This has significant implications from loss of jobs perspective & amongst some of the most vulnerable in our economies · In the immediate to medium-term, we should expect to see a number of direct bilateral engagements with US sprouting, Kenya has already made such a move initiating initiate the process for a reciprocal trade agreement. In the long-term, however, only consolidated voice will give Africa the sort of leverage it needs in engaging the US · Despite the talks signalling possible extension of AGOA, I am skeptical that it could be extended in the shape & form that characterised it over the last 25 years. I'd expect to see rationalisation of eligible countries. I'd also expect to see rationalisation of the spectrum of products that enjoy preferential access into the US market · This presents an opportune moment to accelerate the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Let's cut the protectionism & make it work

I was on CNN this evening for a conversation with Bianna Golodryga on the lapsing of the Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) on September 30th, the implications for Africa & what the road ahead. My key points: · AGOA lapsing & its implications is a lot more nuanced than has been painted so far because the landscape is not homogenous. Jurisdictions like Lesotho & Madagascar (where exports to the US account for 19.0% & 16.0% of all exports, respectively) are most exposed. The mid-segment (where exports to the US as a proportion of total exports are in the mid to high single digits like Kenya, Ghana, South Africa & Mauritius) is where the bulk of countries fall. Then there are economies like Tanzania & Gabon where the proportion is in low single digits & the exposure is minimal · The lapsing of AGOA will disproportionately impact Africa’s light-manufacturing exports to the US. Here we are talking apparel & agro-food products, such as fish & dried fruits. This has significant implications from loss of jobs perspective & amongst some of the most vulnerable in our economies · In the immediate to medium-term, we should expect to see a number of direct bilateral engagements with US sprouting, Kenya has already made such a move initiating initiate the process for a reciprocal trade agreement. In the long-term, however, only consolidated voice will give Africa the sort of leverage it needs in engaging the US · Despite the talks signalling possible extension of AGOA, I am skeptical that it could be extended in the shape & form that characterised it over the last 25 years. I'd expect to see rationalisation of eligible countries. I'd also expect to see rationalisation of the spectrum of products that enjoy preferential access into the US market · This presents an opportune moment to accelerate the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Let's cut the protectionism & make it work

Julians Amboko

15,177 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Being boldly outspoken online holds risks. Exposure holds risks. This is why so many fear taking up space or using their voices on the internet. People will pick your words apart, project their own beliefs, fears, insecurities and perceptions on you, make assumptions and even get off on the drama. I have been exposed in the online space since 2018. And through the years, I have been more and more outspoken about my philosophy around FemDom and BDSM, unapologetically. My practice as a Mistress was always sacred to me. And as a Mentor, I hold myself on the same standard and understand the responsibility I hold to lead women on their Mistress Journey, I do not take this lightly. It is also sacred to me. I first entered the SW industry in 2011 from a very disempowered place and experienced heavy trauma. I barely got out of what I got myself into (if you know my story you know). And when I reentered the industry in 2017, I knew my boundaries, that I would work for myself, and that becoming a Professional Dominatrix was a calling. In 5 years, I built something extraordinary. I made a shit ton of money, yes, but I also had real, genuine and long lasting D/s relationships, with subs I respected and who respected me. Not just who admired me, but actually cared about me, as I cared about them. I had my own Dungeon, that was one of the best in Montreal, and I had an online practice that I developed during COVID that helped my business explode. When I got pregnant and decided to leave the industry as a ProDomme, I dedicated my heart and soul to build the most powerful courses for Dommes. It started with The Dominatrix Academy, and then building a Membership and Sisterhood for Dommes to connect from all over the world. I show up there every single day and create classes and programs based on what they are moving through and need to improve their practice, make more money and from a way that feels aligned with them, not at the expense of their integrity, and to build something that can sustain them in the long haul. Up to this day I get messages from my clients/subs from many years ago. Thanking me for our time together. And now I consistently receive gratitude messages and even gifts from the women who work with me. I am very proud of what I built and most importantly, how I built it. It holds my heart beat. Yes, there will always be people who don't resonate, or who don't like me or what I teach or how I do things. But we are all adults, and we should therefore address concerns like adults. In a mature, ethical, loving way. Not with hate threads. I am extremely disheartened that the controversy I am facing is coming from peers and women I respected. Not from some online troll or someone outside the industry judging SWers. That I was prepared to debate with, to defend my community. Yet, the women who are questioning me publicly and writing about me as if they know what they are talking about, have never met me, spoken to me, been in any of my containers. It's just based on assumptions, wrong interpretation of my words, triggers and prejudice. It is because of women like this that there is such a sister wound in this industry. And one of the most beautiful feedbacks I get from the women in my world, is how healing it is to be in a genuine sisterhood, with no cattiness. I stand by what I said and how I meant it. And if it did not land for you, that's okay, it was just not meant for you. Enough time and energy has been leaked on this. I am just going to share a video of the Graduation of The Dominatrix Academy. THIS is what I do. And this is not just words... you get to actually watch what I create with the women who work with me. Thank you for reading.

Being boldly outspoken online holds risks. Exposure holds risks. This is why so many fear taking up space or using their voices on the internet. People will pick your words apart, project their own beliefs, fears, insecurities and perceptions on you, make assumptions and even get off on the drama. I have been exposed in the online space since 2018. And through the years, I have been more and more outspoken about my philosophy around FemDom and BDSM, unapologetically. My practice as a Mistress was always sacred to me. And as a Mentor, I hold myself on the same standard and understand the responsibility I hold to lead women on their Mistress Journey, I do not take this lightly. It is also sacred to me. I first entered the SW industry in 2011 from a very disempowered place and experienced heavy trauma. I barely got out of what I got myself into (if you know my story you know). And when I reentered the industry in 2017, I knew my boundaries, that I would work for myself, and that becoming a Professional Dominatrix was a calling. In 5 years, I built something extraordinary. I made a shit ton of money, yes, but I also had real, genuine and long lasting D/s relationships, with subs I respected and who respected me. Not just who admired me, but actually cared about me, as I cared about them. I had my own Dungeon, that was one of the best in Montreal, and I had an online practice that I developed during COVID that helped my business explode. When I got pregnant and decided to leave the industry as a ProDomme, I dedicated my heart and soul to build the most powerful courses for Dommes. It started with The Dominatrix Academy, and then building a Membership and Sisterhood for Dommes to connect from all over the world. I show up there every single day and create classes and programs based on what they are moving through and need to improve their practice, make more money and from a way that feels aligned with them, not at the expense of their integrity, and to build something that can sustain them in the long haul. Up to this day I get messages from my clients/subs from many years ago. Thanking me for our time together. And now I consistently receive gratitude messages and even gifts from the women who work with me. I am very proud of what I built and most importantly, how I built it. It holds my heart beat. Yes, there will always be people who don't resonate, or who don't like me or what I teach or how I do things. But we are all adults, and we should therefore address concerns like adults. In a mature, ethical, loving way. Not with hate threads. I am extremely disheartened that the controversy I am facing is coming from peers and women I respected. Not from some online troll or someone outside the industry judging SWers. That I was prepared to debate with, to defend my community. Yet, the women who are questioning me publicly and writing about me as if they know what they are talking about, have never met me, spoken to me, been in any of my containers. It's just based on assumptions, wrong interpretation of my words, triggers and prejudice. It is because of women like this that there is such a sister wound in this industry. And one of the most beautiful feedbacks I get from the women in my world, is how healing it is to be in a genuine sisterhood, with no cattiness. I stand by what I said and how I meant it. And if it did not land for you, that's okay, it was just not meant for you. Enough time and energy has been leaked on this. I am just going to share a video of the Graduation of The Dominatrix Academy. THIS is what I do. And this is not just words... you get to actually watch what I create with the women who work with me. Thank you for reading.

Ms. Malissia

20,088 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨EXPOSED: Erika Kirk's "Hostile Takeover" of TPUSA —Candace Compares It To When LBJ Took Over After JFK's Assassination Candace Owens just laid it all out, and she says the case against Erika Kirk is so simple, we are literally playing a toddler's game of Blue's Clues. The evidence isn't complicated; it's staring us in the face. She lists the "Paw Prints" that lead to one undeniable conclusion: 🐾 Clue #1: The "Superman Neck" Lie. On the very day of Charlie's funeral, Erika allegedly coordinated an emergency call with Andrew Kolvet and the surgeon to fabricate a story about why the .30-06 round didn't exit Charlie's neck (no blood). They cooked up the "Superman Neck" narrative to cover the physics that didn't make sense. 🐾 Clue #2: The Text Message Lies. Erika lied about having Charlie's phone. Then she lied about the "death threat" texts being on Telegram. Candace confirmed they were iMessages on Dan Flood's phone. "I don't like when people lie to my face." 🐾 Clue #3: The "Forgotten" Meeting. Erika conveniently "forgot" the critical meeting in the Hamptons where Netanyahu offered to take TPUSA to the "next level." THE LBJ CONNECTION: Candace drops the ultimate comparison: Erika Kirk is doing to Charlie what LBJ did to JFK.Just like LBJ immediately reversed Kennedy's policies after the assassination, Erika is reversing Charlie's final stand. Charlie said NO to Zionist bullying. Charlie said NO to Bibi appearing on his show. Erika? She let Ben Shapiro buy his way onto the AmFest stage to open for her. She welcomed the New York Times into their home. She even scheduled a secret shoot with Bibi Netanyahu and Ben Shapiro in Palm Beach (which got canceled last second)! The direction of TPUSA has completely flipped. Charlie wanted out of the foreign influence; Erika is welcoming it back in with open arms. "The picture seems pretty obvious... Erika needs to be questioned." FOLLOW Candace Owens, watch her FULL episode below and RT if you agree that Erika taking over TPUSA after Charlie's death feels like more of a HOSTILE Take-Over. 👇

🚨EXPOSED: Erika Kirk's "Hostile Takeover" of TPUSA —Candace Compares It To When LBJ Took Over After JFK's Assassination Candace Owens just laid it all out, and she says the case against Erika Kirk is so simple, we are literally playing a toddler's game of Blue's Clues. The evidence isn't complicated; it's staring us in the face. She lists the "Paw Prints" that lead to one undeniable conclusion: 🐾 Clue #1: The "Superman Neck" Lie. On the very day of Charlie's funeral, Erika allegedly coordinated an emergency call with Andrew Kolvet and the surgeon to fabricate a story about why the .30-06 round didn't exit Charlie's neck (no blood). They cooked up the "Superman Neck" narrative to cover the physics that didn't make sense. 🐾 Clue #2: The Text Message Lies. Erika lied about having Charlie's phone. Then she lied about the "death threat" texts being on Telegram. Candace confirmed they were iMessages on Dan Flood's phone. "I don't like when people lie to my face." 🐾 Clue #3: The "Forgotten" Meeting. Erika conveniently "forgot" the critical meeting in the Hamptons where Netanyahu offered to take TPUSA to the "next level." THE LBJ CONNECTION: Candace drops the ultimate comparison: Erika Kirk is doing to Charlie what LBJ did to JFK.Just like LBJ immediately reversed Kennedy's policies after the assassination, Erika is reversing Charlie's final stand. Charlie said NO to Zionist bullying. Charlie said NO to Bibi appearing on his show. Erika? She let Ben Shapiro buy his way onto the AmFest stage to open for her. She welcomed the New York Times into their home. She even scheduled a secret shoot with Bibi Netanyahu and Ben Shapiro in Palm Beach (which got canceled last second)! The direction of TPUSA has completely flipped. Charlie wanted out of the foreign influence; Erika is welcoming it back in with open arms. "The picture seems pretty obvious... Erika needs to be questioned." FOLLOW Candace Owens, watch her FULL episode below and RT if you agree that Erika taking over TPUSA after Charlie's death feels like more of a HOSTILE Take-Over. 👇

Project Constitution

50,160 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮

aussie17

796,405 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🇮🇪SINN FÉIN ARE TRAITORS🇮🇪 2 years ago today a Sinn Féin sell out RAT Shane 'Zelensky' O' Brien colluded with the police to have me arrested outside the Igo Cafe because I ( & others SDSN ) had exposed Dave Mooney the proprietor of the establishment for taking millions from the Irish tax payer for State sponsored Glorified Human trafficking otherwise known as the Ipas Scam🇮🇪 It only took Matt Carthy TD 18 months to catch up & start condemning the likes of Mooney & the Igo Cafe for the astronomical profits they were making by forcing hoards of unvetted, unwanted foreign criminals upon working class communities such as Ballybrack,Coolock etc🇮🇪 What Carty hasn't come out & condemned are the actions of his party member & slandering weasel Shane O' Brien on the day in question. I won't hold my breath considering their poster boy ( Gerry Adams ) Covered up for his scumbag PEDOPHILE brother for over 20 years with zero accountability from any of these pro open borders,Pro Government & Anti Irish,Braindead Gobshites who still wet themselves at the mere mention of his name🇮🇪 There is a reason why Sharia Féin & All of these degenerate,Perverted leftist dirt birds are tripping over themselves to welcome the evil that is Islam to this island🇮🇪 You only have to look at the years of systematic abuse & cover ups for monsters involved with SF & other political parties raping children & instead of being dealt with properly & permanently those dirty bastards sent them to a new parish to ruin more unsuspecting, poor innocent children's lives🇮🇪 Their unspeakable end goal here is to normalize & legalize the rape of children. Look at everything they advocate for on behalf of the criminal cartel in the Dail from pushing the Trans Agenda,The grooming of minors in the guise of sex education,They voted to have the words MOTHER, WOMAN & FAMILY removed from our Constitution & pushed for hard lock downs back in 2020 for the flu. FAKE REPUBLICANS & FAKE OPPOSITION🇮🇪 Like every political party they are absolutely rotten to the core. Just like the Police,The judiciary & every other corrupt system that needs to be torn down & rebuilt from the ground up only employing people who adore éiRe & that only want the very best for her & our people🇮🇪 I am delighted that I did my part in exposing the rot no matter what the personal cost to me & how much I've been persecuted for it. I thank God he chose me & others like me for this historical battle for the very soul of our precious children's God given Birthright. I consider it an honour🇮🇪 Happy anniversary Zelensky you shitty arsed ten faced rat😂🎂 OUR LAND. OUR DESTINY. OUR ÉIRE. IRELAND BELONGS TO THE IRISH & SHE ALWAYS WILL🇮🇪🤝🇮🇪 If anyone can make the GPO tomorrow for 2pm Cat & Maggie are having a procession for the Stations of the Cross. Wishing you all a very peaceful & blessed Easter weekend🇮🇪 God bless🙌éiReGoBragh🇮🇪

🇮🇪SINN FÉIN ARE TRAITORS🇮🇪 2 years ago today a Sinn Féin sell out RAT Shane 'Zelensky' O' Brien colluded with the police to have me arrested outside the Igo Cafe because I ( & others SDSN ) had exposed Dave Mooney the proprietor of the establishment for taking millions from the Irish tax payer for State sponsored Glorified Human trafficking otherwise known as the Ipas Scam🇮🇪 It only took Matt Carthy TD 18 months to catch up & start condemning the likes of Mooney & the Igo Cafe for the astronomical profits they were making by forcing hoards of unvetted, unwanted foreign criminals upon working class communities such as Ballybrack,Coolock etc🇮🇪 What Carty hasn't come out & condemned are the actions of his party member & slandering weasel Shane O' Brien on the day in question. I won't hold my breath considering their poster boy ( Gerry Adams ) Covered up for his scumbag PEDOPHILE brother for over 20 years with zero accountability from any of these pro open borders,Pro Government & Anti Irish,Braindead Gobshites who still wet themselves at the mere mention of his name🇮🇪 There is a reason why Sharia Féin & All of these degenerate,Perverted leftist dirt birds are tripping over themselves to welcome the evil that is Islam to this island🇮🇪 You only have to look at the years of systematic abuse & cover ups for monsters involved with SF & other political parties raping children & instead of being dealt with properly & permanently those dirty bastards sent them to a new parish to ruin more unsuspecting, poor innocent children's lives🇮🇪 Their unspeakable end goal here is to normalize & legalize the rape of children. Look at everything they advocate for on behalf of the criminal cartel in the Dail from pushing the Trans Agenda,The grooming of minors in the guise of sex education,They voted to have the words MOTHER, WOMAN & FAMILY removed from our Constitution & pushed for hard lock downs back in 2020 for the flu. FAKE REPUBLICANS & FAKE OPPOSITION🇮🇪 Like every political party they are absolutely rotten to the core. Just like the Police,The judiciary & every other corrupt system that needs to be torn down & rebuilt from the ground up only employing people who adore éiRe & that only want the very best for her & our people🇮🇪 I am delighted that I did my part in exposing the rot no matter what the personal cost to me & how much I've been persecuted for it. I thank God he chose me & others like me for this historical battle for the very soul of our precious children's God given Birthright. I consider it an honour🇮🇪 Happy anniversary Zelensky you shitty arsed ten faced rat😂🎂 OUR LAND. OUR DESTINY. OUR ÉIRE. IRELAND BELONGS TO THE IRISH & SHE ALWAYS WILL🇮🇪🤝🇮🇪 If anyone can make the GPO tomorrow for 2pm Cat & Maggie are having a procession for the Stations of the Cross. Wishing you all a very peaceful & blessed Easter weekend🇮🇪 God bless🙌éiReGoBragh🇮🇪

Fergus (Ferg) Power

11,541 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

"I'm still a little suspicious of who they know, but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares. Nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. "The big issue is that Jen was friends with Brian Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And I think they brought on the PI, Marty Kraft, and Kate Peter to insulate their exposure [as to Sandra Birchmore] from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. "Therefore, I think what Alan Jackson's actual plan was—I don't think he ever said this, but this is what I think he was up to. I think Alan Jackson was using the fact that this unit had to sense that the more attention got paid to them, the more the microscope of national and international focus zeroed in on Norfolk County, Massachusetts, the more likely it was that Sandra Birchmore's grave was going to become the locus of the investigatory scrutiny. And that is why I believe they had something to hide. Tully had something to hide. Fanning had something to hide. Yuri had something to hide. Guarino had something to hide, although I'm pretty sure they made him do it. They had something to hide, in my opinion. And so they were worried. "And who would you bring in? If you had covered up a murder—if you were a state police unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids. And I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck is the perfect person? Be like, 'If that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these different people who get too close to this, or we're going to get our spot blown up here—not literally, figuratively. We're going to be exposed for what we did with Birchmore.'" "That's what really pisses me off. Like, that it's so hardened. It's such a jaded fucking view of the world. It's like people who leverage children to stay in other people's lives. Okay, they're the sickest, most demented humans, especially if they're only not in jail because they gave people up or something like that for serious drug crimes. And then they walk around like sanctimonious hypocrites. That's the only type of person in the world that I loathe more than someone who would knowingly try to manipulate a public narrative to insulate a state police unit from accountability for covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder. It's the lowest, most disgusting, most base form of existence. It requires one to have literally numbed their soul to the point where you can sleep at night, having participated in that. I don't think there's enough alcohol, drugs, or sedatives in the world that could make me sleep if I was a party to such a thing. And I question how some of these people do it. "But let me bring it back to the point here, which is: In 2022, the feds clearly—I believe—were starting to poke around. And come 2023, I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept alive, even in light of the national spotlight? "When you think about it from that perspective—when you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement, but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation on Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her. But if you think about it in the context that Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore, then you understand why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them, the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway, and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA. It destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly, and she's a tactical fucking genius. "I'm fully of the opinion that Karen Read staged a fake falling out with Natalie so that Natalie would get in the orbit of the MSP in June, July, and August of 2023 and feed information back to Karen. Likewise, I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the criminal prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely, in my opinion, bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. "If you don't know what a backhand is, folks, a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface, because you're dealing with a very, very high-level operation like the state police, who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death, but really you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together, and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got wind of it and died. "Now it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: This is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power—who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said, "Nope, it's out of your hands." And that's what Judge Doolin did today. The exposure potential—someone just needed to not be involved with Karen Read, Kearney, or the Norfolk DA, or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft, and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there, but at least for Lindsey Gaetani, Judge Doolin said, 'enough of this nonsense.'"

"I'm still a little suspicious of who they know, but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares. Nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. "The big issue is that Jen was friends with Brian Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And I think they brought on the PI, Marty Kraft, and Kate Peter to insulate their exposure [as to Sandra Birchmore] from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. "Therefore, I think what Alan Jackson's actual plan was—I don't think he ever said this, but this is what I think he was up to. I think Alan Jackson was using the fact that this unit had to sense that the more attention got paid to them, the more the microscope of national and international focus zeroed in on Norfolk County, Massachusetts, the more likely it was that Sandra Birchmore's grave was going to become the locus of the investigatory scrutiny. And that is why I believe they had something to hide. Tully had something to hide. Fanning had something to hide. Yuri had something to hide. Guarino had something to hide, although I'm pretty sure they made him do it. They had something to hide, in my opinion. And so they were worried. "And who would you bring in? If you had covered up a murder—if you were a state police unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids. And I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck is the perfect person? Be like, 'If that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these different people who get too close to this, or we're going to get our spot blown up here—not literally, figuratively. We're going to be exposed for what we did with Birchmore.'" "That's what really pisses me off. Like, that it's so hardened. It's such a jaded fucking view of the world. It's like people who leverage children to stay in other people's lives. Okay, they're the sickest, most demented humans, especially if they're only not in jail because they gave people up or something like that for serious drug crimes. And then they walk around like sanctimonious hypocrites. That's the only type of person in the world that I loathe more than someone who would knowingly try to manipulate a public narrative to insulate a state police unit from accountability for covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder. It's the lowest, most disgusting, most base form of existence. It requires one to have literally numbed their soul to the point where you can sleep at night, having participated in that. I don't think there's enough alcohol, drugs, or sedatives in the world that could make me sleep if I was a party to such a thing. And I question how some of these people do it. "But let me bring it back to the point here, which is: In 2022, the feds clearly—I believe—were starting to poke around. And come 2023, I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept alive, even in light of the national spotlight? "When you think about it from that perspective—when you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement, but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation on Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her. But if you think about it in the context that Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore, then you understand why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them, the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway, and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA. It destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly, and she's a tactical fucking genius. "I'm fully of the opinion that Karen Read staged a fake falling out with Natalie so that Natalie would get in the orbit of the MSP in June, July, and August of 2023 and feed information back to Karen. Likewise, I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the criminal prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely, in my opinion, bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. "If you don't know what a backhand is, folks, a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface, because you're dealing with a very, very high-level operation like the state police, who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death, but really you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together, and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got wind of it and died. "Now it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: This is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power—who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said, "Nope, it's out of your hands." And that's what Judge Doolin did today. The exposure potential—someone just needed to not be involved with Karen Read, Kearney, or the Norfolk DA, or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft, and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there, but at least for Lindsey Gaetani, Judge Doolin said, 'enough of this nonsense.'"

Grant Smith Ellis

21,114 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Why Are We Bowing Down To Islam? When Muslim women like Laila Cunningham ask why Britain is bowing down to an ideology that isn't ours, it tells you the problem isn't racism. It's cowardice. Cunningham isn't attacking Muslims. She's attacking a British state that has abandoned its most basic duty. The same state that arrests parents trying to rescue their daughters from rape gangs while letting the perpetrators walk free. A Britain that punishes truth-tellers and rewards liars. We're watching institutions that were supposed to protect children, uphold the law, and defend justice without favour trading away everything that once mattered. Truth, fairness, equality before the law have all been sacrificed because officials are terrified of difficult conversations. Terrified of being called racist. Terrified of causing offence. Terrified of losing their jobs. That terror has consequences. Over 100,000 working-class White girls raped and ignored for decades because authorities didn't want to "stir up racial tensions." Eight year old Sara Sharif forced to wear a hijab that hid the very injuries that would eventually kill her. Whilst her neighbours hearing her screams were too afraid to call the police because they feared being branded racist on social media. When people do try to speak up, whistleblowers get silenced, files get destroyed, families get told to shut up for the sake of "community relations." Every cover-up, every council meeting ends with another child sacrificed to political convenience. This betrays everyone. Obviously the victims, but also every integrated Muslim expecting to live as equals under British law. They suffer most from establishment cowardice because every time the state bows down to extremists, it fuels resentment against ordinary Muslims trying to build decent lives here. When Laila Cunningham asks "Why are we bowing down?" she's trying to save the country, not divide it. She's voicing what millions think but fear to say aloud. That Britain has confused tolerance with surrender. Real leadership means applying the law equally regardless of who it offends. It means refusing to let cultural sensitivity become a shield for abuse. It means protecting children before protecting reputations and choosing justice over political careers. Britain once stood for courage, decency and fairness. Now we have officials who would rather censor uncomfortable truths than confront them. Leaders who think moral strength means staying silent while children suffer. Cunningham's question demands an answer. Why are we bowing down? Why are we betraying everything that made this country work? The truth is we're not being destroyed by racism. We're being destroyed by fear. Until the people running Britain find some courage, the betrayal continues. Not just of the victims, but of the nation itself. _________ This isn't about politics anymore. It's about preservation of a ruling clique defending its own survival, even if it means abandoning the very people they swore to protect. The nation does not need silence. It needs truth. This is not only a child abuse scandal. It is a crisis of truth, trust and governance in modern Britain. I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. I cannot do this on my own. I need you to stand with me and help make sure the National Inquiry we have all fought for is not a whitewash. We’re running out of time. Without the numbers, they will win. It’s as simple as that. 🔴 Subscribe to my newsletter – it’s free. Or support the work for just 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Whatever you do, please subscribe; 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No corporate sponsors. No party machine. Just you and thousands of ordinary people who know what’s at stake. We’ve come this far. Help finish it. Raja Miah MBE

Why Are We Bowing Down To Islam? When Muslim women like Laila Cunningham ask why Britain is bowing down to an ideology that isn't ours, it tells you the problem isn't racism. It's cowardice. Cunningham isn't attacking Muslims. She's attacking a British state that has abandoned its most basic duty. The same state that arrests parents trying to rescue their daughters from rape gangs while letting the perpetrators walk free. A Britain that punishes truth-tellers and rewards liars. We're watching institutions that were supposed to protect children, uphold the law, and defend justice without favour trading away everything that once mattered. Truth, fairness, equality before the law have all been sacrificed because officials are terrified of difficult conversations. Terrified of being called racist. Terrified of causing offence. Terrified of losing their jobs. That terror has consequences. Over 100,000 working-class White girls raped and ignored for decades because authorities didn't want to "stir up racial tensions." Eight year old Sara Sharif forced to wear a hijab that hid the very injuries that would eventually kill her. Whilst her neighbours hearing her screams were too afraid to call the police because they feared being branded racist on social media. When people do try to speak up, whistleblowers get silenced, files get destroyed, families get told to shut up for the sake of "community relations." Every cover-up, every council meeting ends with another child sacrificed to political convenience. This betrays everyone. Obviously the victims, but also every integrated Muslim expecting to live as equals under British law. They suffer most from establishment cowardice because every time the state bows down to extremists, it fuels resentment against ordinary Muslims trying to build decent lives here. When Laila Cunningham asks "Why are we bowing down?" she's trying to save the country, not divide it. She's voicing what millions think but fear to say aloud. That Britain has confused tolerance with surrender. Real leadership means applying the law equally regardless of who it offends. It means refusing to let cultural sensitivity become a shield for abuse. It means protecting children before protecting reputations and choosing justice over political careers. Britain once stood for courage, decency and fairness. Now we have officials who would rather censor uncomfortable truths than confront them. Leaders who think moral strength means staying silent while children suffer. Cunningham's question demands an answer. Why are we bowing down? Why are we betraying everything that made this country work? The truth is we're not being destroyed by racism. We're being destroyed by fear. Until the people running Britain find some courage, the betrayal continues. Not just of the victims, but of the nation itself. _________ This isn't about politics anymore. It's about preservation of a ruling clique defending its own survival, even if it means abandoning the very people they swore to protect. The nation does not need silence. It needs truth. This is not only a child abuse scandal. It is a crisis of truth, trust and governance in modern Britain. I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. I cannot do this on my own. I need you to stand with me and help make sure the National Inquiry we have all fought for is not a whitewash. We’re running out of time. Without the numbers, they will win. It’s as simple as that. 🔴 Subscribe to my newsletter – it’s free. Or support the work for just 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Whatever you do, please subscribe; 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No corporate sponsors. No party machine. Just you and thousands of ordinary people who know what’s at stake. We’ve come this far. Help finish it. Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

219,282 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Oldham hasn't been taken over by gangsters overnight. It's been handed to them on a mango chutney tray, slowly, quietly, and through a series of deliberate decisions by the very people paid to protect it. Everyone here knows it. That's what outsiders never understand. This isn't hidden knowledge. It's whispered in taxis, discussed at school gates, talked about in takeaways. People lower their voices because saying it out loud gets you branded a racist, gets your business targeted, or because someone dangerous might be listening. Silence isn't ignorance. It's survival. The war against the drug trade was lost long ago. Competing cartels have settled in and embedded themselves across the high street. Chicken shops aren't struggling. They're thriving, laundering money in plain sight. Certain streets didn't become no-go areas by accident. They became protected territory. While working families face aggressive enforcement over social media posts or minor indiscretions, million-pound drug networks operate openly. Not protected by brilliance but by complicity. An institutional culture that has decided some crimes are too sensitive to confront, some offenders too politically inconvenient to pursue. When people hear gangsters taking over a town, they imagine chaos. Violence. Armed police. Open warfare. That isn't how it happens in modern Britain. It happens quietly. Structurally. Almost politely. First comes control of illicit markets. Drugs, cash lending, intimidation. Not chaotic or contested but stable. The same names. The same areas. Year after year. When criminal markets operate like regulated utilities, something has gone badly wrong. Then money laundering through tolerated businesses. Takeaways, garages, community enterprises. Cash-heavy operations that never fail, never struggle, no matter how empty they always are. They become part of the town's furniture. Known, discussed, yet untouched. Next comes political proximity. Not conspiracy theories. Just relationships. Sometimes, immediate family members. Familiar faces at civic events. Criminal networks don't need to run the town hall. They just need to know, or better still, be related to those that do. Then comes the mutual protection. Politicians who know where the bodies are buried protect police officers who've made convenient compromises. Police officers who've turned blind eyes protect politicians with dirty secrets. They become invested in each other's survival because exposure of one threatens them all. The line between public service and personal interest disappears completely. After that, policing becomes selective. Enforcement still exists but flows predictably in one direction. Some areas get saturated with attention. Others are treated as too sensitive, too risky, too complicated. The law doesn't vanish. It becomes conditional. Finally, silencing mechanisms. Speak up and you're smeared. Push harder and you're investigated. Question it and you're arrested at the instructions of politicians and demonised by their partners in the press. This is what institutional capture looks like. This isn't just about race. It's also about power. It's about who really owns this town. Compromised politicians, captured police commanders, and the grotesque reality that the getaway driver of a cop killer can end up running for public office. That alone tells you how far the rot has spread. I'm not asking you to believe me. You already know. You've watched it happen. You've seen the cars, the houses, the untouchables who never get touched. The gangsters aren't the greatest threat to Oldham anymore. The institutions that sold us out to them are. And so that we are clear, what is happening in Oldham is also happening everywhere else where Labour is in bed with the Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Muslim bloc vote. _________ I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. Prior to this, I spent over a decade of my life trying desperately to safeguard communities from violent extremists. If my words have ever helped you make sense of a broken system, if they’ve ever made you feel seen, heard, or hopeful, please don’t scroll past. 🔴 Support the work. This fight is far from over. 👉 There are NO paywalls to access any of my work. I share ALL of my content for free. I ask, for those that can afford to do so, to support me with £3/month or £30/year. That’s 75p a week. Pennies to most - everything to help keep me going. 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 Raja 🙏

Oldham hasn't been taken over by gangsters overnight. It's been handed to them on a mango chutney tray, slowly, quietly, and through a series of deliberate decisions by the very people paid to protect it. Everyone here knows it. That's what outsiders never understand. This isn't hidden knowledge. It's whispered in taxis, discussed at school gates, talked about in takeaways. People lower their voices because saying it out loud gets you branded a racist, gets your business targeted, or because someone dangerous might be listening. Silence isn't ignorance. It's survival. The war against the drug trade was lost long ago. Competing cartels have settled in and embedded themselves across the high street. Chicken shops aren't struggling. They're thriving, laundering money in plain sight. Certain streets didn't become no-go areas by accident. They became protected territory. While working families face aggressive enforcement over social media posts or minor indiscretions, million-pound drug networks operate openly. Not protected by brilliance but by complicity. An institutional culture that has decided some crimes are too sensitive to confront, some offenders too politically inconvenient to pursue. When people hear gangsters taking over a town, they imagine chaos. Violence. Armed police. Open warfare. That isn't how it happens in modern Britain. It happens quietly. Structurally. Almost politely. First comes control of illicit markets. Drugs, cash lending, intimidation. Not chaotic or contested but stable. The same names. The same areas. Year after year. When criminal markets operate like regulated utilities, something has gone badly wrong. Then money laundering through tolerated businesses. Takeaways, garages, community enterprises. Cash-heavy operations that never fail, never struggle, no matter how empty they always are. They become part of the town's furniture. Known, discussed, yet untouched. Next comes political proximity. Not conspiracy theories. Just relationships. Sometimes, immediate family members. Familiar faces at civic events. Criminal networks don't need to run the town hall. They just need to know, or better still, be related to those that do. Then comes the mutual protection. Politicians who know where the bodies are buried protect police officers who've made convenient compromises. Police officers who've turned blind eyes protect politicians with dirty secrets. They become invested in each other's survival because exposure of one threatens them all. The line between public service and personal interest disappears completely. After that, policing becomes selective. Enforcement still exists but flows predictably in one direction. Some areas get saturated with attention. Others are treated as too sensitive, too risky, too complicated. The law doesn't vanish. It becomes conditional. Finally, silencing mechanisms. Speak up and you're smeared. Push harder and you're investigated. Question it and you're arrested at the instructions of politicians and demonised by their partners in the press. This is what institutional capture looks like. This isn't just about race. It's also about power. It's about who really owns this town. Compromised politicians, captured police commanders, and the grotesque reality that the getaway driver of a cop killer can end up running for public office. That alone tells you how far the rot has spread. I'm not asking you to believe me. You already know. You've watched it happen. You've seen the cars, the houses, the untouchables who never get touched. The gangsters aren't the greatest threat to Oldham anymore. The institutions that sold us out to them are. And so that we are clear, what is happening in Oldham is also happening everywhere else where Labour is in bed with the Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Muslim bloc vote. _________ I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. Prior to this, I spent over a decade of my life trying desperately to safeguard communities from violent extremists. If my words have ever helped you make sense of a broken system, if they’ve ever made you feel seen, heard, or hopeful, please don’t scroll past. 🔴 Support the work. This fight is far from over. 👉 There are NO paywalls to access any of my work. I share ALL of my content for free. I ask, for those that can afford to do so, to support me with £3/month or £30/year. That’s 75p a week. Pennies to most - everything to help keep me going. 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 Raja 🙏

Raja Miah

15,874 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

The Tokyo Game Show was a humbling yet uplifting experience. We booked early and got a pretty decent sized booth in the middle of the main hall, hoping we could make some noise in Asia's most prestigious web2 game show... But the moment I arrived to the venue, it made me realize just how small Apeiron and web3 gaming still really is. We were surrounded by the giants of the industry, their sheer size, quality and scope are next level, and I genuinely feel like a bucket in an ocean.💧 I was also hoping we would have gotten more to show by this time as well, that our mobile game would be ready and the game economy would be blossoming. Sadly, it's quite the opposite, and it made me wonder if we are ready for such a big stage. But times don't wait and opportunities always come and go, so we'll just have to present the work we've done so far with the doodiest attitude and let the show go on.🙌 Each morning there would be a giant rush as early participants run through the venue to collect time slotted entry tickets from giant publishers to make sure they can experience upcoming AAA titles like Monster Hunter Wilds (MH is actually where Apeiron normal attacks are inspired from). Most of the giant booths don't actually give out much merchandise or ingame rewards, and the only real offer they have is for their fans to playtest the latest games, watch unrevealed trailers or take photos with cosplayers/mascots/diorama. Having been in web3 for a while, this is a good reminder that, out there, there is a massive and genuine love for gaming beyond incentives. And this is the intrinsic value of games that we hope to deliver🥰 After the initial rush, the traffick will eventually disperse and trickle towards other booths, I remember watching our line build up each day, finding different ways to attract passerbys to get a leaflet, to pre-register and to playtest our game, it took 2 hours to fill up the lines on the first day, and by the 4th day the lines filled up in 30 minutes. We got a pretty good strategy going, the models posed for a wall of photographers to block the path, while the mascot and plushies drew people in. big sword | Apeiron found it more effective to wave sealed packaged plushies instead of opened plushies to let ppl know it is actually something they can obtain and take away, small but very effective difference!🧸 Our line extended each day, and the booth was constantly surrounded by curious passerbys asking what game this is...what is the name of that cute mascot... when is it launching... After each playtest our Japanese community doods, such as mino.ron 🍊 who helped us man the battle stations would ask the player for their feedback, many of whom had to que for over an hour to try our game... and the feedback we got were very positive! The emotions I see on their face as they play the game, fighting the first boss and winning their first pvp matches... were all of genuine excitement and happiness. I watched a lot of gamers from around the world play Aperion for the first time, and I have to say this gaming nation really does pick up Apeiron faster compared to other regions, or hopefully, its because of the new tutorial we put in place.🤞 We were visited by many of the major booth's representatives, countless PR/Broadcasting outlets and a handful of mobile game publishers. A lot of them told me they were attracted to our booth's colorful design. We would mention the crypto elements of the game but most of the interest is centered around the cute dood, the colorful artwork and the unique gameplay. I literally got over 200+ business cards during these 4 days (though bulk of them are marketing agencies lol) and my email and telegram is absolutely flooded.💦 We may be a bucket in the ocean, and there is still a lot of work that needs to be done, but amidst the giants out there, the appeal of Apeiron is still here. Our uniqueness and quality is what sets us apart even amongst web2 peers. I don't know how much longer it will take for Apeiron to be ready to compete with the giants up there, but I know I want to be up there one day, and I have a target I really want to aim for.🎯 During those 4 days, while I was giving out flyers and waving plushies towards smiling japanese doods in real life, I was also messaging back in omega channel to a group of upset holders who were concerned with our token performance. It's quite a surreal and contrasting experience. But yes I understand the performance of our token and assets also stands in stark contrast to what we are trying to present in real life. But with all the lesson we've learnt in crypto over the past 3 years... is that we must be patient and conserve ammunition during market downturns. We have not sold any APRS since TGE, we have only been accumulating steadily, we will stage our comeback when the mobile game is ready, when we have the means to acquire and onramp retail users (i beleive this is the sacred duty of web3 games), and hopefully but not absolutely necessarily, with healthier market conditions.💱 We are so close now, and as cheesy as it sounds, its darkest before dawn, we have witnessed this in Apeiron's ecosystem before the Ronin migration, we will build, we will survive, and we will thrive. What's most important now, is to focus on creating the best gaming experience for new users coming in. Our closed mobile beta testing on google play will begin next week, together with a new bug report flow, we will need all the help we can get to eliminate those bugs and issues and more suggestions to help build a better Apeiron.🙇‍♂️

The Tokyo Game Show was a humbling yet uplifting experience. We booked early and got a pretty decent sized booth in the middle of the main hall, hoping we could make some noise in Asia's most prestigious web2 game show... But the moment I arrived to the venue, it made me realize just how small Apeiron and web3 gaming still really is. We were surrounded by the giants of the industry, their sheer size, quality and scope are next level, and I genuinely feel like a bucket in an ocean.💧 I was also hoping we would have gotten more to show by this time as well, that our mobile game would be ready and the game economy would be blossoming. Sadly, it's quite the opposite, and it made me wonder if we are ready for such a big stage. But times don't wait and opportunities always come and go, so we'll just have to present the work we've done so far with the doodiest attitude and let the show go on.🙌 Each morning there would be a giant rush as early participants run through the venue to collect time slotted entry tickets from giant publishers to make sure they can experience upcoming AAA titles like Monster Hunter Wilds (MH is actually where Apeiron normal attacks are inspired from). Most of the giant booths don't actually give out much merchandise or ingame rewards, and the only real offer they have is for their fans to playtest the latest games, watch unrevealed trailers or take photos with cosplayers/mascots/diorama. Having been in web3 for a while, this is a good reminder that, out there, there is a massive and genuine love for gaming beyond incentives. And this is the intrinsic value of games that we hope to deliver🥰 After the initial rush, the traffick will eventually disperse and trickle towards other booths, I remember watching our line build up each day, finding different ways to attract passerbys to get a leaflet, to pre-register and to playtest our game, it took 2 hours to fill up the lines on the first day, and by the 4th day the lines filled up in 30 minutes. We got a pretty good strategy going, the models posed for a wall of photographers to block the path, while the mascot and plushies drew people in. big sword | Apeiron found it more effective to wave sealed packaged plushies instead of opened plushies to let ppl know it is actually something they can obtain and take away, small but very effective difference!🧸 Our line extended each day, and the booth was constantly surrounded by curious passerbys asking what game this is...what is the name of that cute mascot... when is it launching... After each playtest our Japanese community doods, such as mino.ron 🍊 who helped us man the battle stations would ask the player for their feedback, many of whom had to que for over an hour to try our game... and the feedback we got were very positive! The emotions I see on their face as they play the game, fighting the first boss and winning their first pvp matches... were all of genuine excitement and happiness. I watched a lot of gamers from around the world play Aperion for the first time, and I have to say this gaming nation really does pick up Apeiron faster compared to other regions, or hopefully, its because of the new tutorial we put in place.🤞 We were visited by many of the major booth's representatives, countless PR/Broadcasting outlets and a handful of mobile game publishers. A lot of them told me they were attracted to our booth's colorful design. We would mention the crypto elements of the game but most of the interest is centered around the cute dood, the colorful artwork and the unique gameplay. I literally got over 200+ business cards during these 4 days (though bulk of them are marketing agencies lol) and my email and telegram is absolutely flooded.💦 We may be a bucket in the ocean, and there is still a lot of work that needs to be done, but amidst the giants out there, the appeal of Apeiron is still here. Our uniqueness and quality is what sets us apart even amongst web2 peers. I don't know how much longer it will take for Apeiron to be ready to compete with the giants up there, but I know I want to be up there one day, and I have a target I really want to aim for.🎯 During those 4 days, while I was giving out flyers and waving plushies towards smiling japanese doods in real life, I was also messaging back in omega channel to a group of upset holders who were concerned with our token performance. It's quite a surreal and contrasting experience. But yes I understand the performance of our token and assets also stands in stark contrast to what we are trying to present in real life. But with all the lesson we've learnt in crypto over the past 3 years... is that we must be patient and conserve ammunition during market downturns. We have not sold any APRS since TGE, we have only been accumulating steadily, we will stage our comeback when the mobile game is ready, when we have the means to acquire and onramp retail users (i beleive this is the sacred duty of web3 games), and hopefully but not absolutely necessarily, with healthier market conditions.💱 We are so close now, and as cheesy as it sounds, its darkest before dawn, we have witnessed this in Apeiron's ecosystem before the Ronin migration, we will build, we will survive, and we will thrive. What's most important now, is to focus on creating the best gaming experience for new users coming in. Our closed mobile beta testing on google play will begin next week, together with a new bug report flow, we will need all the help we can get to eliminate those bugs and issues and more suggestions to help build a better Apeiron.🙇‍♂️

LoreKeeper

28,962 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

$Analyzing Episode 42. Season 2 aka Of Thresholds, Truth, and Taking Sides It took a while for me to come out of the euphoria we all experienced thanks to ep 42, but I managed somehow. I had some questions while watching the episode live, such as how Alya and Cihan could just do the deed when, a few episodes ago, they were all about acting correctly. Or whatever happened to Cihan’s pesky guilt? Or was this really the right time for the writer to bring in halvet? I watched and rewatched with those questions until I picked up a few details I’d missed earlier. Hopefully, this analysis will help clear out some cobwebs in your grey matter, too. So let’s get to it. We start the episode with Boran watching Alya and Cihan dance with murder in his eyes. To say the zombie is jealous would be an understatement. He then marches on to the middle of the square, grabs Alya’s hand, and announces who he is to the whole wide world. He thinks he’s all macho when he does that. There’s a sense of puffed-up self-importance about him, like he’s trying to prove how brave he is. Fortunately for us, his little bubble of boorish chauvinism goes ‘pop’ the minute Demir’s little henchman fires a bullet at him. And that’s Boran for you in a nutshell. He thinks he’s all that, but he really isn't. It reminded me of the scene where Cihan says he knew the instant Boran regretted k-wording Sulaiman because the seriousness of his stupidity had finally begun dawning on him, but by then it was too late. It also makes me think the zombie has serious self-destructive tendencies, combined with impulsiveness and resentment. This man is a recipe for disaster. Because think about it. He chooses visibility over safety, knowing it would unleash all kinds of hell, but does it anyway. He would rather burn everything than accept the hand he’s been dealt with humility. This was Boran crossing over the threshold. Now, let’s switch to Cihan. We all knew Ciho was going to jump in front of that thankless freak because of his hero complex (a side-effect of Sadakat’s conditioning). But, I think Cihan saving the zombie this way also highlights his own nature and the narrative at large. Because with his protective gesture, Cihan makes it clear that he doesn’t see Boran as a rival, he has no ill will in his heart for his brother, and that the right man was made Ağa because his protection isn’t contingent on who he loves or likes (unlike the zombie). That responsibility and sacrifice have been bred into Cihan’s very core is rather clear in this scene. It makes an excellent contrasting juxtaposition for the viewers between the two brothers. Both men make decisions in this scene, but the whys and hows couldn’t be more different. Now, let’s take a moment to go back to the questions I mentioned right at the beginning, relating to the halvet, Ciho’s guilt, and the timing of it all. Upon rewatching the episode, I realized that what happens in this scene sets off why we end the episode with consummation. Just keep this in the back of your mind for a bit, as we cover the other parts. Another scene that caught my attention in untangling the theme of episode 42 is Alya and Cihan’s talk after poor Yalcin has to extract yet another bullet from Cihan’s person. Why? That’s simple. It highlights Alya’s fear of losing Cihan. The way she points out the bullet could have pierced his heart, her telling him he needs to control his self-sacrificing tendencies, etc. I mean, Cihan keeps joking to get Alya to calm down, but the truth is, she’s very afraid. She loves Cihan more than her own life; we know that. But the lives they lead, the danger that always follows them, and Boran’s dark presence keep hounding this woman day and night. In such a situation, would it really make sense to keep denying your true feelings when it could all end in a second? Nope. That’s why I marked this scene as Reason no 1 of why the episode ends the way it does. The next scene that stood out to me in the scheme of characters choosing sides is, of course, the jail showdown. There’s a popular opinion in the fandom that Sadakat is afraid of Boran, etc. I am not of that opinion. Because so much of Boran is Sadakat, and that’s very clear in this scene. Instead of accepting the blame for the clusterfuck of a situation he’s created, the zombie blames Cihan. That reminds me of how Sadakat says she would never have threatened the nurse to give an innocent woman blood thinners if only Alya had agreed to leave. See? It’s never Sadakat’s fault. It’s always someone else’s actions that force her to behave badly, blah blah. Like mother, like son. Not surprising. What was surprising was the way Cihan behaves because he makes it very clear he’s picked a side (Next to Alya) and he’s not budging. This is Cihan crossing his point of no return because, in other words, what he says is, appeasement and brotherhood before all is a thing of the past. And here’s the key to the ‘guilt’ question. What Cihan observes of his brother, episode 39 onwards, probably makes him realize there will be no pretty way to make Boran let Alya go. Being the good brother and taking a step back wouldn’t change Boran; it would just make Alya vulnerable. Then there’s the fact that Boran revealing himself endangers everyone, including Alya and Deniz, so restraint is also dangerous now. Finally, nothing helps cure Cihan of his guilt more than Boran being himself. We tend to glorify the dead. And nostalgia can warp more than clarify. When the series began, we met a Cihan Albora caving under the guilt of not being able to save his brother. Now, we see a Cihan who is slowly beginning to realize he idolized what never should have been mourned as innocence. Boran’s actions help fracture his myth that the Albora siblings built in their minds. That helps free Cihan from a parasitic type of devotion, built on illusion rather than the truth. This is Motive no 2. Motive no 3 is when Cihan catches Sadakat in the act of trying to prey on Alya’s weakness - Deniz. I’m not saying Cihan sleeps with Alya because he wants to manipulate her into staying. But, in the overall scheme of things, I think Ciho recognizes that he can trust no one to look after Alya and Deniz, to keep them safe from Boran, except himself. I think he knows after that point that curbing his feelings creates a distance between him and Alya that leaves her exposed, emotionally isolated, and cornered. In other words, it leaves her weakened. However, choosing her fully, being with her body and soul, can become her shield. So, in a way, for both Alya and Cihan, intimacy morphs from being born of desire to also being about presence. And once they realize that, near the end of the episode, the line between waiting and giving in becomes rather faint. Now, let’s talk about THE scene. Did you notice how the opportunity for consummation comes about? A blocked road. That’s how. At the beginning of the episode, fate intervenes to kick-start a series of events that force all the characters out into the open, violence goes public, loyalties are divided, insights are achieved, and secrets are brought to light. By the end of the episode, fate intervenes again, with a blocked road that pushes Alya and Cihan into a space far removed from their family lives, scrutiny, and threats. The hand of destiny, it seems, narrows down their path, until only one direction remains: inwards, towards each other. What looks like an inconvenience is, in truth, another threshold. Another point of no return, for both Alya and Cihan, this time. So, why did Alya and Cihan finally give in to their feelings? In short, because it was time. Besides the boundless love they feel for each other, there were external factors pointed out throughout the episode. And then, they got the perfect opportunity and went for it. Still, was this really the right time for Gulizar to write about lovemaking? I think so. I think instead of trying to act correctly, for once, Alya and Cihan acted honestly. They went with their hearts. How will this play out in the future? Well, I don’t know. But I sure as heck am excited. Till next time, Happy reading y’all :D #CihAl #UzakŞehir$

Analyzing Episode 42. Season 2 aka Of Thresholds, Truth, and Taking Sides It took a while for me to come out of the euphoria we all experienced thanks to ep 42, but I managed somehow. I had some questions while watching the episode live, such as how Alya and Cihan could just do the deed when, a few episodes ago, they were all about acting correctly. Or whatever happened to Cihan’s pesky guilt? Or was this really the right time for the writer to bring in halvet? I watched and rewatched with those questions until I picked up a few details I’d missed earlier. Hopefully, this analysis will help clear out some cobwebs in your grey matter, too. So let’s get to it. We start the episode with Boran watching Alya and Cihan dance with murder in his eyes. To say the zombie is jealous would be an understatement. He then marches on to the middle of the square, grabs Alya’s hand, and announces who he is to the whole wide world. He thinks he’s all macho when he does that. There’s a sense of puffed-up self-importance about him, like he’s trying to prove how brave he is. Fortunately for us, his little bubble of boorish chauvinism goes ‘pop’ the minute Demir’s little henchman fires a bullet at him. And that’s Boran for you in a nutshell. He thinks he’s all that, but he really isn't. It reminded me of the scene where Cihan says he knew the instant Boran regretted k-wording Sulaiman because the seriousness of his stupidity had finally begun dawning on him, but by then it was too late. It also makes me think the zombie has serious self-destructive tendencies, combined with impulsiveness and resentment. This man is a recipe for disaster. Because think about it. He chooses visibility over safety, knowing it would unleash all kinds of hell, but does it anyway. He would rather burn everything than accept the hand he’s been dealt with humility. This was Boran crossing over the threshold. Now, let’s switch to Cihan. We all knew Ciho was going to jump in front of that thankless freak because of his hero complex (a side-effect of Sadakat’s conditioning). But, I think Cihan saving the zombie this way also highlights his own nature and the narrative at large. Because with his protective gesture, Cihan makes it clear that he doesn’t see Boran as a rival, he has no ill will in his heart for his brother, and that the right man was made Ağa because his protection isn’t contingent on who he loves or likes (unlike the zombie). That responsibility and sacrifice have been bred into Cihan’s very core is rather clear in this scene. It makes an excellent contrasting juxtaposition for the viewers between the two brothers. Both men make decisions in this scene, but the whys and hows couldn’t be more different. Now, let’s take a moment to go back to the questions I mentioned right at the beginning, relating to the halvet, Ciho’s guilt, and the timing of it all. Upon rewatching the episode, I realized that what happens in this scene sets off why we end the episode with consummation. Just keep this in the back of your mind for a bit, as we cover the other parts. Another scene that caught my attention in untangling the theme of episode 42 is Alya and Cihan’s talk after poor Yalcin has to extract yet another bullet from Cihan’s person. Why? That’s simple. It highlights Alya’s fear of losing Cihan. The way she points out the bullet could have pierced his heart, her telling him he needs to control his self-sacrificing tendencies, etc. I mean, Cihan keeps joking to get Alya to calm down, but the truth is, she’s very afraid. She loves Cihan more than her own life; we know that. But the lives they lead, the danger that always follows them, and Boran’s dark presence keep hounding this woman day and night. In such a situation, would it really make sense to keep denying your true feelings when it could all end in a second? Nope. That’s why I marked this scene as Reason no 1 of why the episode ends the way it does. The next scene that stood out to me in the scheme of characters choosing sides is, of course, the jail showdown. There’s a popular opinion in the fandom that Sadakat is afraid of Boran, etc. I am not of that opinion. Because so much of Boran is Sadakat, and that’s very clear in this scene. Instead of accepting the blame for the clusterfuck of a situation he’s created, the zombie blames Cihan. That reminds me of how Sadakat says she would never have threatened the nurse to give an innocent woman blood thinners if only Alya had agreed to leave. See? It’s never Sadakat’s fault. It’s always someone else’s actions that force her to behave badly, blah blah. Like mother, like son. Not surprising. What was surprising was the way Cihan behaves because he makes it very clear he’s picked a side (Next to Alya) and he’s not budging. This is Cihan crossing his point of no return because, in other words, what he says is, appeasement and brotherhood before all is a thing of the past. And here’s the key to the ‘guilt’ question. What Cihan observes of his brother, episode 39 onwards, probably makes him realize there will be no pretty way to make Boran let Alya go. Being the good brother and taking a step back wouldn’t change Boran; it would just make Alya vulnerable. Then there’s the fact that Boran revealing himself endangers everyone, including Alya and Deniz, so restraint is also dangerous now. Finally, nothing helps cure Cihan of his guilt more than Boran being himself. We tend to glorify the dead. And nostalgia can warp more than clarify. When the series began, we met a Cihan Albora caving under the guilt of not being able to save his brother. Now, we see a Cihan who is slowly beginning to realize he idolized what never should have been mourned as innocence. Boran’s actions help fracture his myth that the Albora siblings built in their minds. That helps free Cihan from a parasitic type of devotion, built on illusion rather than the truth. This is Motive no 2. Motive no 3 is when Cihan catches Sadakat in the act of trying to prey on Alya’s weakness - Deniz. I’m not saying Cihan sleeps with Alya because he wants to manipulate her into staying. But, in the overall scheme of things, I think Ciho recognizes that he can trust no one to look after Alya and Deniz, to keep them safe from Boran, except himself. I think he knows after that point that curbing his feelings creates a distance between him and Alya that leaves her exposed, emotionally isolated, and cornered. In other words, it leaves her weakened. However, choosing her fully, being with her body and soul, can become her shield. So, in a way, for both Alya and Cihan, intimacy morphs from being born of desire to also being about presence. And once they realize that, near the end of the episode, the line between waiting and giving in becomes rather faint. Now, let’s talk about THE scene. Did you notice how the opportunity for consummation comes about? A blocked road. That’s how. At the beginning of the episode, fate intervenes to kick-start a series of events that force all the characters out into the open, violence goes public, loyalties are divided, insights are achieved, and secrets are brought to light. By the end of the episode, fate intervenes again, with a blocked road that pushes Alya and Cihan into a space far removed from their family lives, scrutiny, and threats. The hand of destiny, it seems, narrows down their path, until only one direction remains: inwards, towards each other. What looks like an inconvenience is, in truth, another threshold. Another point of no return, for both Alya and Cihan, this time. So, why did Alya and Cihan finally give in to their feelings? In short, because it was time. Besides the boundless love they feel for each other, there were external factors pointed out throughout the episode. And then, they got the perfect opportunity and went for it. Still, was this really the right time for Gulizar to write about lovemaking? I think so. I think instead of trying to act correctly, for once, Alya and Cihan acted honestly. They went with their hearts. How will this play out in the future? Well, I don’t know. But I sure as heck am excited. Till next time, Happy reading y’all :D #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

11,751 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

They Knew It Had Collapsed: How Oldham Council Hid the Truth About Its Grooming Gang Inquiry For months, council leaders knew the town's promised inquiry into child sexual exploitation was dead. They just didn't tell the people of Oldham. Last night's full meeting of Oldham Council descended into the familiar charade. Fifteen minutes had been allocated for public questions, supposedly a chance for residents to hold their representatives to account. Instead, almost the entire slot was consumed by former Labour councillors and party activists, a tactic designed to run down the clock and shut out scrutiny. Only through Councillor Wilkinson's insistence was the chamber forced to confront what everyone else was avoiding. He demanded the rules be suspended so a response could finally be given to the question that cut to the heart of public concern: what happened to Oldham's promised inquiry into the Pakistani Rape Gangs? After visible hesitation, the Mayor agreed. Council Leader Arooj Shah rose to respond, immediately distancing herself from what followed. She claimed she wasn't personally involved and also how her pre prepared statement she was about to read had been written by officers of the council. Shah read from her script: "In January this year, following the government's announcement of support for five local inquiries into child sexual exploitation, Oldham Council began the process of commissioning its own inquiry, including engaging with Tom K. Crowther KC as its potential chair. However, while this work was underway, in June, Baroness Casey published the outcome of her audit on group-based child sexual exploitation, recommending a national inquiry that would include targeted local investigations. Conversations with the Home Office then focused on whether Oldham's local inquiry should instead form part of the national inquiry, which would carry additional legal powers. An update was provided to survivors explaining that this process was underway and was likely to take some time. We continue to await confirmation from the Home Office of the proposed chair of the national inquiry and Oldham's position within it. Officers have requested an update and timescales for when this information will be available. We will continue to seek the best outcome to ensure survivors have their testimony heard and get the answers they deserve." Strip away the bureaucratic language about "awaiting confirmation" and "ongoing conversations" and the truth becomes clear: the Oldham rape gang inquiry no longer exists. It was quietly abandoned months ago when the council halted its work after Baroness Casey's June report. For five months, silence. No progress. No transparency. No communication with survivors or the public. For five months, the Pakistani Gangster endorsed Labour Party run Oldham Council has known that its independent inquiry, the one promised to victims of grooming gangs and to the people of this town, had been scrapped. Yet not once did the council leader or her administration publicly admit it. _________ The truth is Arooj Shah had the opportunity to make this clear at the start of last night's meeting. She chose not to. Her pre prepared statement was only dragged into the open at the final moment, forced out by intervention from the Reform UK councillor, Mark Wilkinson. _________ The timing, the obfuscation, the pre-written response by unnamed officers all points to a leadership desperate to distance itself from responsibility for another betrayal of survivors. This is the same Arooj Shah who has repeatedly voted against motions calling for a public inquiry into the Pakistani Rape Gangs. Now she presides over the quiet burial of Oldham's own. _________ The Cover-Up Continues The cover-up hasn't ended; it's simply changed shape. Oldham's Labour-run council now hides behind the convenient excuse that it must "await confirmation" from the Labour-run Home Office. One arm of the same political machine pretending to wait for permission from another. It isn't governance - it's choreography. Both institutions have known for months that the Oldham inquiry is dead. Instead of admitting the collapse, they've chosen silence, leaving survivors and residents to believe that justice is merely delayed when in truth it's been quietly buried. Every day that passes without transparency is another day of deceit. Bureaucratic language and political spin shield those who failed the most vulnerable children in our town. This isn't incompetence. It's intent. Public declarations record Shah's association with the convicted heroin dealer and cop killer geyaway driver "Irish Immy", while court documents confirm that Shah's own brother was convicted of money-laundering offences. That is before of her associations with a convicted kidnapper and torturer. No, I'm not making any of this up. These links deepen public concern that Oldham's leadership sits far too close to the very networks that have long blighted the town. What's being protected isn't just the Labour Party, it's the entire web of influence that keeps Oldham's establishment insulated from accountability. The council, the police, the local party machine, their associates in business and criminality. Every one of them has a stake in keeping this story buried. This isn't about politics anymore. It's about preservation - a ruling clique defending its own survival, even if it means abandoning the very people they swore to protect. Oldham doesn't need silence. It needs truth. And what is happening in Oldham is also happening across the United Kingdom where the Pakistani Cartels and Islamists have infiltrated our democracy. ___________ The pattern is identical in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Newcastle and many other places. Deny the truth. Attack the critics. Protect reputations. Claim credit when the truth finally emerges. This is not only a CSE scandal. It is a crisis of truth, trust and governance in modern Britain. The country is beginning to wake up. The truth is no longer theirs to control. This inquiry didn't happen because the government suddenly found its moral compass. It was dragged into existence by survivors who wouldn't shut up, whistleblowers who refused to disappear, and a public tired of being lied to. For years, they fought against it. Now they'll fight to control it. The whitewash has already begun. The only question is whether we let them get away with it? I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. We cannot do this on our own. We need you to stand with us and help make sure the National Inquiry we have all fought for is not a whitewash. We’re running out of time. Without the numbers, they will win. It’s as simple as that. 🔴 Subscribe to my newsletter – it’s free. Or support the work for just 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Whatever you do, please subscribe; 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No corporate sponsors. No party machine. Just you and thousands of ordinary people who know what’s at stake. We’ve come this far. Help finish it. - Raja Miah MBE

They Knew It Had Collapsed: How Oldham Council Hid the Truth About Its Grooming Gang Inquiry For months, council leaders knew the town's promised inquiry into child sexual exploitation was dead. They just didn't tell the people of Oldham. Last night's full meeting of Oldham Council descended into the familiar charade. Fifteen minutes had been allocated for public questions, supposedly a chance for residents to hold their representatives to account. Instead, almost the entire slot was consumed by former Labour councillors and party activists, a tactic designed to run down the clock and shut out scrutiny. Only through Councillor Wilkinson's insistence was the chamber forced to confront what everyone else was avoiding. He demanded the rules be suspended so a response could finally be given to the question that cut to the heart of public concern: what happened to Oldham's promised inquiry into the Pakistani Rape Gangs? After visible hesitation, the Mayor agreed. Council Leader Arooj Shah rose to respond, immediately distancing herself from what followed. She claimed she wasn't personally involved and also how her pre prepared statement she was about to read had been written by officers of the council. Shah read from her script: "In January this year, following the government's announcement of support for five local inquiries into child sexual exploitation, Oldham Council began the process of commissioning its own inquiry, including engaging with Tom K. Crowther KC as its potential chair. However, while this work was underway, in June, Baroness Casey published the outcome of her audit on group-based child sexual exploitation, recommending a national inquiry that would include targeted local investigations. Conversations with the Home Office then focused on whether Oldham's local inquiry should instead form part of the national inquiry, which would carry additional legal powers. An update was provided to survivors explaining that this process was underway and was likely to take some time. We continue to await confirmation from the Home Office of the proposed chair of the national inquiry and Oldham's position within it. Officers have requested an update and timescales for when this information will be available. We will continue to seek the best outcome to ensure survivors have their testimony heard and get the answers they deserve." Strip away the bureaucratic language about "awaiting confirmation" and "ongoing conversations" and the truth becomes clear: the Oldham rape gang inquiry no longer exists. It was quietly abandoned months ago when the council halted its work after Baroness Casey's June report. For five months, silence. No progress. No transparency. No communication with survivors or the public. For five months, the Pakistani Gangster endorsed Labour Party run Oldham Council has known that its independent inquiry, the one promised to victims of grooming gangs and to the people of this town, had been scrapped. Yet not once did the council leader or her administration publicly admit it. _____ The truth is Arooj Shah had the opportunity to make this clear at the start of last night's meeting. She chose not to. Her pre prepared statement was only dragged into the open at the final moment, forced out by intervention from the Reform UK councillor, Mark Wilkinson. _ The timing, the obfuscation, the pre-written response by unnamed officers all points to a leadership desperate to distance itself from responsibility for another betrayal of survivors. This is the same Arooj Shah who has repeatedly voted against motions calling for a public inquiry into the Pakistani Rape Gangs. Now she presides over the quiet burial of Oldham's own. _ The Cover-Up Continues The cover-up hasn't ended; it's simply changed shape. Oldham's Labour-run council now hides behind the convenient excuse that it must "await confirmation" from the Labour-run Home Office. One arm of the same political machine pretending to wait for permission from another. It isn't governance - it's choreography. Both institutions have known for months that the Oldham inquiry is dead. Instead of admitting the collapse, they've chosen silence, leaving survivors and residents to believe that justice is merely delayed when in truth it's been quietly buried. Every day that passes without transparency is another day of deceit. Bureaucratic language and political spin shield those who failed the most vulnerable children in our town. This isn't incompetence. It's intent. Public declarations record Shah's association with the convicted heroin dealer and cop killer geyaway driver "Irish Immy", while court documents confirm that Shah's own brother was convicted of money-laundering offences. That is before of her associations with a convicted kidnapper and torturer. No, I'm not making any of this up. These links deepen public concern that Oldham's leadership sits far too close to the very networks that have long blighted the town. What's being protected isn't just the Labour Party, it's the entire web of influence that keeps Oldham's establishment insulated from accountability. The council, the police, the local party machine, their associates in business and criminality. Every one of them has a stake in keeping this story buried. This isn't about politics anymore. It's about preservation - a ruling clique defending its own survival, even if it means abandoning the very people they swore to protect. Oldham doesn't need silence. It needs truth. And what is happening in Oldham is also happening across the United Kingdom where the Pakistani Cartels and Islamists have infiltrated our democracy. _______ The pattern is identical in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Newcastle and many other places. Deny the truth. Attack the critics. Protect reputations. Claim credit when the truth finally emerges. This is not only a CSE scandal. It is a crisis of truth, trust and governance in modern Britain. The country is beginning to wake up. The truth is no longer theirs to control. This inquiry didn't happen because the government suddenly found its moral compass. It was dragged into existence by survivors who wouldn't shut up, whistleblowers who refused to disappear, and a public tired of being lied to. For years, they fought against it. Now they'll fight to control it. The whitewash has already begun. The only question is whether we let them get away with it? I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. We cannot do this on our own. We need you to stand with us and help make sure the National Inquiry we have all fought for is not a whitewash. We’re running out of time. Without the numbers, they will win. It’s as simple as that. 🔴 Subscribe to my newsletter – it’s free. Or support the work for just 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Whatever you do, please subscribe; 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No corporate sponsors. No party machine. Just you and thousands of ordinary people who know what’s at stake. We’ve come this far. Help finish it. - Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

62,345 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

About a month ago, a clip of mine went viral⁽¹⁾ talking about the Current State of Twitch (3rd thumbnail in this tweet). It resonated w/ people outside my community, so lemme elaborate (as a 10yr+ Twitch Veteran). Current State of Twitch isn't great and haven't been for a while. I've been passionate about Twitch since inception (I joined in April 2011 in the JTV days, a few months before Twitch debuted in July 2011), and been trying to instill positive change but I'm only a cog in the machine compared to where influence can impact — likely via Amazon-appointed Executives to help "oversee things" at decade-old-acquisition-that-has-still-generated-zero-profit Twitch⁽²⁾. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Muddled Identity ------------------------------------------------ Describing Twitch 10 years ago was easy: "Youtube, except always live, for gamers". Now, it's more muddled & fluid, at best: "Always live broadcasters who aim to connect with their viewers and foster communities(?)" — that, in itself, isn't problematic; but how it's accomplished, what methods are most effective, and how certain directories accumulate higher viewership is, I think (I may elaborate further on that in a future tweet). The most common reactive bark I've heard following TwitchCon 2025 is "Ban Politics" or "Make it Gaming-Only Again!" — People forget, but Pokemon GO (June 2016) going worldwide-viral was the crack-in-the-dam that lead to IRL as a directory because of the impracticality of continuing Twitch's "games-only" era as the site was increasing in popularity, reach, and cultural significance. IRL was a band-aid solution for the core function of Directories⁽³⁾ (which was to let would-be-browsers make better-informed decisions on what to watch based on their interest). It's too broad and encompassing, which led to an unintended dopamine-producing⁽⁴⁾ psuedo-ChatRoulette where you "never know what you're gonna see" browsing there. Without a better tool to migrate users or aggregate topical content, this problem exacerbated continuously. Just Chatting was supposed to be the solution, as it came with 11-12 other directories⁽⁵⁾ to attemptedly split the IRL monolith, but failed to inspire Social Behavioral Change tremendously. Just Chatting is more popular than ever, discoverability — like in the broad, functional sense — is busted cuz every genre of content stuffed within it and fails to disincentivize streamers from opting-out of the most popular directory. So, how do you stand-out in the overcrowded field where a fuckton of the viewership goes for a Roulette Pull on something entertaining to watch? ... ------------------------------------------------ The Era of Clout-Farming Content (and the fact it works, ugh) ------------------------------------------------ Once IRL directory came in Sept 2016, so did the meta of skirting the ToS (Terms of Service) to maximize views or push the limits of what was tolerated on Twitch. Fundamentally, the social dynamic of receiving a suspension (everyone generally refers to them colloquially as "bans") earns notoriety and "free vacation/marketing", that when coinciding with a comeback event, open the possibility of a net-positive from the boost in viewership or metrics. This isn't as relevant now because the ToS Enforcement has gotten significant buffs to be more transparent and structural in the last half-decade. I can't speak on the nuance of this now, but "Full-Time IRL Streamers" and "Sweaty IRL Affiliates" were unbearable at TwitchCons until TC Policy cracked down on requiring consent by those they bumrush'd into (while live of course), so I assume they're probably equally as intrusive everywhere else ... then Kick came along in 2022 and dominated the headlines for mischief within this realm, for the most part; but that's a different topic altogether. The burden of an authentic collab can be too much friction, slow moving — and honestly, too much work for a streamer to do — compared to the efficacy of blowing up Streamer x Streamer Conflict via self-commentary-reacts for sensationalism and maximizing parasocial viewers' worst tendencies. Effectively, ragebaiting. I'm not advocating to abolish this as a policy. I'm pointing out how this is a very effective way to garner views within the social constructs — and it shouldn't be, nor always was. Something changed at some point. I don't wanna bore you with a timeline of the last decade of controversy on Twitch, so I'll fast-forward to when I definitively see evidence that Clout-Culture is failing upward: In March 2025, the unbanning of Adin Ross⁽⁶⁾ (on Twitch) I saw as a huge moral failure that reeks of desperation for his views/clout/relevance at the direct expense of the integrity of Twitch Culture. Not sure if that was a Clancy-specific decision or what, but it encompasses "neo-Twitch" or a disconnect if there ever was one. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch Culture is diluting at the expense of recouping revenue ------------------------------------------------ A decade ago, Twitch Plays Pokemon broke news across insular-livestreaming gossip and was celebrated as a pinnacle of internet fandom⁽⁷⁾ (Feb 2014). This event was a testament to the value of Twitch because it reinforced the undeniable power of CULTURE present in Twitch Chats. I don't think the event could've worked on a YouTube Livestream (remember YouTube Gaming, introduced in 2015?). There's a certain aura present in Twitch Chat that makes it feel captivating to interact and engage with compared to a YouTube Live Chat Box. One feels like a close relative of bot-spam'd yt comments and the other feels ... real. I think that value is the culture — what could keep Twitch afloat for a long time, even if YouTube were to hypothetically obsolete Twitch in every way for delivering live broadcasted video content. I've noticed that as the meta has shifted towards revenue-maxxx'ing with the proliferation of Spectacle Events, typically marathons, that are engineered to paywall as many things as possible, at the expense of the content. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the culture has shifted. I also do think most of the marathon content isn't good; they're carried by being experiences with strong FOMO-factors to compel your participation by viewing. I do suspect there's a saturation point where the combination of the waning niches of livestreaming, 4th-wall-breaking, and manufactured spectacles can keep an audience seduced. Like, the content (in aspects) has less substance and I wonder what that means for the welfare of Twitch Culture and its content in another 5 years. Perhaps Twitch could foresee this and become proactive on the manner?... ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Conduct & Repetitive Incompetence ------------------------------------------------ Twitch has prioritized generating revenue over addressing the needs of the already-active users for years. Emmett Shear (previous CEO; 2011-2023) probably was a huge reason for sluggish changes overall to the platform as from what I hear but I can't say for certain. Regardless, we got Dan Clancy as CEO and, while there has been lots of positive changes under his reign, it really does feel like "too little, too late" with the pressure looming from Amazon's 2015 acquisition; increased competition and marketshare decline; and declining revenues, active users & monthly streamers"⁽⁸⁾. Here's a brief timeline of features implemented that I feel helped build the culture. Before COVID, I believe the biggest obstacle was helping migrate streamers from being part-time to capable full-time content creators. So, at the time, revenue-generating products were revolutionary to help there, including me at that time: ✅ 2016 — Bits/Cheers & Prime Subs (!!!) ✅ 2017 — Gift Subs (to a specific user) ✅ 2018 — Gift Subs (to randos in Community); Super Subs & Ultra Subs ✅ 2018 — Twitch Mobile App v2 (original mobile app was a constantly broken mess) ✅ 2018 — Twitch Prime no longer adblocks (I will agree how they did it was stupid, but ultimately, it was a necessary; I can defend this in the replies if needed) Comparatively, here's the hostile changes that came at the expense of the Twitch Populous supporting said-change: ❌ 2017 — Communities⁽⁹⁾ (DOA cuz it wasn't streamlined enough and vulnerable to Popularity Bias; I can elaborate in replies if needed) ❌ 2018 — Tags for Channels (DOA cuz anyone can use any tag, diluting the effort of broad categorization or filtering in any capacity) ❌ 2022 — Twitch kills Hosting⁽¹⁰⁾ (also new "craptacular" Offline Page w/ Suggested Channels idea instead) ❌ 2024 — Twitch Mobile App v3⁽¹¹⁾ (Tiktok clone dogshit) ❌ 2024 — Stories (who asked for this?) ❌ 2025 — 100hr Video Storage Limit (going back against Collections & cementing Twitch isn't an evergreen platform; also SHORT NOTICE) ❌2025 — Live Rewind ... paywall'd to Twitch Turbo & Channel Subscribers only (this is free sitewide on yt's livestreams)⁽¹²⁾ ❌ 2025 — Ability to gift 1000 subs at once (already shelved from backlash) Post-COVID, I see a pattern of prioritizing revenue-generating products at the expense of what creators need or ask for. I understand Twitch needs to appease Amazon eventually with profit, but with a half-decade passed, all the buffs I can recall are 2K Resolution Streaming*, Portrait & Dual-Canvas Streaming*, and Stream Together / Shared Chat. *Both of these sortta don't count cuz they're invite-only betas that aren't site-wide and don't apply to non-Partners 🤷‍♂️ While more features arrive that ask for more of your money to partake in the Twitch Experience, I feel like the users (both Streamers & Viewers) continue to be neglected. 10 years ago, I thought YouTube Gaming was DOA; now I anticipate when more people bail on Twitch because the functionality will decay without a compelling reason to stay if the culture dminishes. I'll conclude with the 4th thumbnail included in this tweet — a supercut of a portion from the TwitchCon 2025 Keynote from Dan Clancy, with the youtube dislikes superimposed-over for your enjoyment. Let me know what you think of what I shared today! 🎉🥳 I'm considering also breaking down the specific causes (not symptoms) of why Twitch is where it is, and my 999 IQ Pragmatic Solutions that are tenfold better than what I've seen suggested after this morale fallout following TwitchCon 2025 👀

About a month ago, a clip of mine went viral⁽¹⁾ talking about the Current State of Twitch (3rd thumbnail in this tweet). It resonated w/ people outside my community, so lemme elaborate (as a 10yr+ Twitch Veteran). Current State of Twitch isn't great and haven't been for a while. I've been passionate about Twitch since inception (I joined in April 2011 in the JTV days, a few months before Twitch debuted in July 2011), and been trying to instill positive change but I'm only a cog in the machine compared to where influence can impact — likely via Amazon-appointed Executives to help "oversee things" at decade-old-acquisition-that-has-still-generated-zero-profit Twitch⁽²⁾. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Muddled Identity ------------------------------------------------ Describing Twitch 10 years ago was easy: "Youtube, except always live, for gamers". Now, it's more muddled & fluid, at best: "Always live broadcasters who aim to connect with their viewers and foster communities(?)" — that, in itself, isn't problematic; but how it's accomplished, what methods are most effective, and how certain directories accumulate higher viewership is, I think (I may elaborate further on that in a future tweet). The most common reactive bark I've heard following TwitchCon 2025 is "Ban Politics" or "Make it Gaming-Only Again!" — People forget, but Pokemon GO (June 2016) going worldwide-viral was the crack-in-the-dam that lead to IRL as a directory because of the impracticality of continuing Twitch's "games-only" era as the site was increasing in popularity, reach, and cultural significance. IRL was a band-aid solution for the core function of Directories⁽³⁾ (which was to let would-be-browsers make better-informed decisions on what to watch based on their interest). It's too broad and encompassing, which led to an unintended dopamine-producing⁽⁴⁾ psuedo-ChatRoulette where you "never know what you're gonna see" browsing there. Without a better tool to migrate users or aggregate topical content, this problem exacerbated continuously. Just Chatting was supposed to be the solution, as it came with 11-12 other directories⁽⁵⁾ to attemptedly split the IRL monolith, but failed to inspire Social Behavioral Change tremendously. Just Chatting is more popular than ever, discoverability — like in the broad, functional sense — is busted cuz every genre of content stuffed within it and fails to disincentivize streamers from opting-out of the most popular directory. So, how do you stand-out in the overcrowded field where a fuckton of the viewership goes for a Roulette Pull on something entertaining to watch? ... ------------------------------------------------ The Era of Clout-Farming Content (and the fact it works, ugh) ------------------------------------------------ Once IRL directory came in Sept 2016, so did the meta of skirting the ToS (Terms of Service) to maximize views or push the limits of what was tolerated on Twitch. Fundamentally, the social dynamic of receiving a suspension (everyone generally refers to them colloquially as "bans") earns notoriety and "free vacation/marketing", that when coinciding with a comeback event, open the possibility of a net-positive from the boost in viewership or metrics. This isn't as relevant now because the ToS Enforcement has gotten significant buffs to be more transparent and structural in the last half-decade. I can't speak on the nuance of this now, but "Full-Time IRL Streamers" and "Sweaty IRL Affiliates" were unbearable at TwitchCons until TC Policy cracked down on requiring consent by those they bumrush'd into (while live of course), so I assume they're probably equally as intrusive everywhere else ... then Kick came along in 2022 and dominated the headlines for mischief within this realm, for the most part; but that's a different topic altogether. The burden of an authentic collab can be too much friction, slow moving — and honestly, too much work for a streamer to do — compared to the efficacy of blowing up Streamer x Streamer Conflict via self-commentary-reacts for sensationalism and maximizing parasocial viewers' worst tendencies. Effectively, ragebaiting. I'm not advocating to abolish this as a policy. I'm pointing out how this is a very effective way to garner views within the social constructs — and it shouldn't be, nor always was. Something changed at some point. I don't wanna bore you with a timeline of the last decade of controversy on Twitch, so I'll fast-forward to when I definitively see evidence that Clout-Culture is failing upward: In March 2025, the unbanning of Adin Ross⁽⁶⁾ (on Twitch) I saw as a huge moral failure that reeks of desperation for his views/clout/relevance at the direct expense of the integrity of Twitch Culture. Not sure if that was a Clancy-specific decision or what, but it encompasses "neo-Twitch" or a disconnect if there ever was one. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch Culture is diluting at the expense of recouping revenue ------------------------------------------------ A decade ago, Twitch Plays Pokemon broke news across insular-livestreaming gossip and was celebrated as a pinnacle of internet fandom⁽⁷⁾ (Feb 2014). This event was a testament to the value of Twitch because it reinforced the undeniable power of CULTURE present in Twitch Chats. I don't think the event could've worked on a YouTube Livestream (remember YouTube Gaming, introduced in 2015?). There's a certain aura present in Twitch Chat that makes it feel captivating to interact and engage with compared to a YouTube Live Chat Box. One feels like a close relative of bot-spam'd yt comments and the other feels ... real. I think that value is the culture — what could keep Twitch afloat for a long time, even if YouTube were to hypothetically obsolete Twitch in every way for delivering live broadcasted video content. I've noticed that as the meta has shifted towards revenue-maxxx'ing with the proliferation of Spectacle Events, typically marathons, that are engineered to paywall as many things as possible, at the expense of the content. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the culture has shifted. I also do think most of the marathon content isn't good; they're carried by being experiences with strong FOMO-factors to compel your participation by viewing. I do suspect there's a saturation point where the combination of the waning niches of livestreaming, 4th-wall-breaking, and manufactured spectacles can keep an audience seduced. Like, the content (in aspects) has less substance and I wonder what that means for the welfare of Twitch Culture and its content in another 5 years. Perhaps Twitch could foresee this and become proactive on the manner?... ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Conduct & Repetitive Incompetence ------------------------------------------------ Twitch has prioritized generating revenue over addressing the needs of the already-active users for years. Emmett Shear (previous CEO; 2011-2023) probably was a huge reason for sluggish changes overall to the platform as from what I hear but I can't say for certain. Regardless, we got Dan Clancy as CEO and, while there has been lots of positive changes under his reign, it really does feel like "too little, too late" with the pressure looming from Amazon's 2015 acquisition; increased competition and marketshare decline; and declining revenues, active users & monthly streamers"⁽⁸⁾. Here's a brief timeline of features implemented that I feel helped build the culture. Before COVID, I believe the biggest obstacle was helping migrate streamers from being part-time to capable full-time content creators. So, at the time, revenue-generating products were revolutionary to help there, including me at that time: ✅ 2016 — Bits/Cheers & Prime Subs (!!!) ✅ 2017 — Gift Subs (to a specific user) ✅ 2018 — Gift Subs (to randos in Community); Super Subs & Ultra Subs ✅ 2018 — Twitch Mobile App v2 (original mobile app was a constantly broken mess) ✅ 2018 — Twitch Prime no longer adblocks (I will agree how they did it was stupid, but ultimately, it was a necessary; I can defend this in the replies if needed) Comparatively, here's the hostile changes that came at the expense of the Twitch Populous supporting said-change: ❌ 2017 — Communities⁽⁹⁾ (DOA cuz it wasn't streamlined enough and vulnerable to Popularity Bias; I can elaborate in replies if needed) ❌ 2018 — Tags for Channels (DOA cuz anyone can use any tag, diluting the effort of broad categorization or filtering in any capacity) ❌ 2022 — Twitch kills Hosting⁽¹⁰⁾ (also new "craptacular" Offline Page w/ Suggested Channels idea instead) ❌ 2024 — Twitch Mobile App v3⁽¹¹⁾ (Tiktok clone dogshit) ❌ 2024 — Stories (who asked for this?) ❌ 2025 — 100hr Video Storage Limit (going back against Collections & cementing Twitch isn't an evergreen platform; also SHORT NOTICE) ❌2025 — Live Rewind ... paywall'd to Twitch Turbo & Channel Subscribers only (this is free sitewide on yt's livestreams)⁽¹²⁾ ❌ 2025 — Ability to gift 1000 subs at once (already shelved from backlash) Post-COVID, I see a pattern of prioritizing revenue-generating products at the expense of what creators need or ask for. I understand Twitch needs to appease Amazon eventually with profit, but with a half-decade passed, all the buffs I can recall are 2K Resolution Streaming, Portrait & Dual-Canvas Streaming, and Stream Together / Shared Chat. *Both of these sortta don't count cuz they're invite-only betas that aren't site-wide and don't apply to non-Partners 🤷‍♂️ While more features arrive that ask for more of your money to partake in the Twitch Experience, I feel like the users (both Streamers & Viewers) continue to be neglected. 10 years ago, I thought YouTube Gaming was DOA; now I anticipate when more people bail on Twitch because the functionality will decay without a compelling reason to stay if the culture dminishes. I'll conclude with the 4th thumbnail included in this tweet — a supercut of a portion from the TwitchCon 2025 Keynote from Dan Clancy, with the youtube dislikes superimposed-over for your enjoyment. Let me know what you think of what I shared today! 🎉🥳 I'm considering also breaking down the specific causes (not symptoms) of why Twitch is where it is, and my 999 IQ Pragmatic Solutions that are tenfold better than what I've seen suggested after this morale fallout following TwitchCon 2025 👀

trihex

17,788 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Alright, here's the epic towel rant from tonight; And so that's what kind of tipped me off in real time. I was like: wait a minute. Is Judge Doolin ruling from the bench right now? And then I was like: wait a minute. He's ruling from the bench and ordering them to appoint a new prosecutor and potentially the Attorney General. Oh my word. How—what is this? I—this wasn't on my bingo card. Even now I'm just like: Oh my God, I can't believe he did that. Judge Doolin—in a good way. I'm just like: Oh my God, there is hope. And then to follow it up with: "Oh yeah, I'm thinking about a hearing on the contempt." Oh my God—you're telegraphing. You're going to have a contempt hearing after the Attorney General is potentially on the case. The other witnesses, however, are left in this position where they have this kind of not really well-funded—like kind of spastic prosecution, like the special prosecutors on the Kearney cases. Then you got the December 23rd, 2023 criminal charges against Aidan that were charged in Dedham District Court, 23rd or 26th or so. And that was for illegally—allegedly—recording Lindsey Gaetani and then submitting an edited version of the recording into court for some reason. I don't know why Aidan did that, especially apparently when there's an original version of the recording pursuant to some of the statements in court. And then also for intimidating Lindsey—for allegedly going over there on December 23rd, 2023—against Karen Read's advice and against his lawyers' advice, apparently, according to a leaked group chat message from Facebook in 2024—in May of 2024—going over to Lindsey's apartment. And then according to the affidavit from the search warrant for Karen Read's cell phone—allegedly telling Lindsey that she shouldn't cooperate with the grand jury. She should—she could remove information from her phone or something—that Aidan would get her a lawyer, but only if she agreed to meet with a lawyer only with him present, because she had, quote, "broken his trust." It just like—wild stuff. And that new grand jury, by the way, was apparently—it did go forward. And then in time it came out that it—that was about Karen and Aidan and witness intimidation and conspiracy, because Aidan Kearney—between October and November—really August and November of 2023—it started telling Lindsey Gaetani about his communications with Karen Read that included—in writing—Exhibit O to Karen Read search warrant affidavit, which says that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that in November of 2023—November 28, 2023, to be specific—that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that Karen Read and her team at ex parte conversations with former U.S. Attorney Josh Levy—which was right in the window of time that Jessica Leslie, the grand juror leaker, was leaking information. Leslie started leaking in August of 2022—which is the same month that Alan Jackson joined Karen Read's legal team. And Josh Levy—who was one of the U.S. Attorneys in charge of that grand jury—Leslie was leaking about four different cases: probably the Birchmore case, definitely the Read and O'Keefe case, definitely the CDL case. One more case. We can't really—the group of us journalists involved in this—can't really figure out. So right in the middle of that—November of 2023—Josh Levy is leaking ex parte grand jury information to Karen Read, which she's putting—she's telling Aidan Kearney about; he's putting it in writing. He just was trying to just show off for Lindsey, but you don't like—come on—like what is it? First day in the IC, bro? I'm not in the IC. I'm not part of the government. I'm a towel. But anyway—so Aidan's bragging to Lindsey, and I don't think that was a very good idea. I mean, she's brilliant and stuff, but like—why would you ever say that to her? Don't say that stuff. But anyway—like, why would you say—even if it's your significant other—unless they are read-in on the intel that you are sharing—why would you ever, ever, ever share that with someone? It exposes them to an incredible liability—which, if you love them, don't do it. It also exposes your own credibility to an incredible risk of liability. You will never be trusted by the intelligence community again. Pillow talk and honeypots are how they trap operatives. If you chase sex, they will compromise you. How can you not understand that? So if you get compromised by someone who's not an agent—just someone who's your partner and you're just telling them stuff about protected federal investigations—what do you think your reputation is going to be like among the intelligence community when you're doing that and they haven't even honeypotted you? You just voluntarily started putting this shit in writing. They're going to look at you like you are out of your mind. So anyway—Karen Read apparently is telling Aidan Kearney that she's having ex parte conversations with Josh Levy. Now, the grand jury that Leslie was leaking from was impaneled in May of 2022 when Rachael Rollins used to be U.S. Attorney in Boston. Now think about this. In 2020, Rachael Rollins and Aidan Kearney—Rachael Rollins, a hyper-liberal known for her soft-on-crime stance. We'll also hear Rollins hated Michael Morrissey. Anyway, Rollins worked with Turtle Boy to send a Republican operative named Rayla Campbell to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events in the Senate race against Ed Markey so that Ed Markey could win the Senate seat. Now, interestingly enough, Rachael Rollins then got appointed to the position of U.S. Attorney right after that. And you might say: well, Grant, that's a stretch. No, no—because then within a few months, Rachael Rollins—part of the reason she gets thrown out of office by the DOJ OIG—is because she attends an event in Andover with—guess who?—Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of the then-president who appointed her. Now, what does that mean? Well, if you really think about the geopolitical implications of the 2020 Senate race between Ed Markey in Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy Jr.—well, one of the things you're going to realize is that—think about 2020. The leadership around Biden did not know that the chaos of 2024 was going to happen with Kamala and Biden not really being up to it. You're thinking ahead to 2024. Why? Who's your biggest target if you are a sitting Democrat and you're worried about a primary challenge four years from now? Well, what if JFK's—what is it—nephew or whatever it is—is in the House of Representatives? And what if JFK started his career in the House of Representatives? And what if that new young Kennedy with red hair and sort of a photogenic face? What if he is running for JFK's old Senate seat? What if he's on the same exact trajectory as JFK? Oh, we can't have that. We—as the Biden White House—cannot have Joe Kennedy Jr. beating Ed Markey for Senate. And how it got to the point that somebody talked to Rachael Rollins and she came up with the brilliant idea to reach out to Turtle Boy so that Turtle Boy would talk to Rayla Campbell to send her to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events to help Markey—I don't know. But that's why I think Rachael Rollins became U.S. Attorney—someone who, in my opinion, was uniquely unqualified and fundamentally unethically un-predisposed to being able to run that office. Who then in turn immediately tried to interfere in the 2022 Suffolk DA primary between Kevin Hayden and Ricardo O'Rourke—because Rollins wanted to see her progressive vision continue through O'Rourke—so she worked with Daniel Medwed—the same professor who was involved with advocating the media on behalf of Karen Read's team. She worked with Daniel Medwed to get a story leaked about how a non-existent federal probe into Kevin Hayden—to increase Ricardo O'Rourke's chances in the Suffolk DA primary. Sound familiar? Oh, hell yeah. So anyway—between November of 2022 and May of 2023—you got this weird situation where Rollins knows she's getting forced out; Levy's going to take over the office. The people who take Rollins out are Josh Levy, Bill Abley, and still head of the criminal division—Dustin Chao, I think—still head of the public integrity unit, and then executive officer who is also the press secretary or the communications director of the office. Those four people—without being named; they're named by title—were the people who cooperated with the DOJ to take Rollins out—DOJ-OIG to take Rollins out. Now, why is that interesting? Well, one—because it shows that people in that office knew that Rachael Rollins had a proclivity for weaponizing leaks about non-existent federal probes to interfere in particular district attorney races and matters. Second—Rachael Rollins and Michael Morrissey had a bifurcated history of ten years. One: Rachael Rollins had this list of 25 crimes she wouldn't prosecute, and other DAs critiqued her—not just Michael Morrissey but others. Rollins—I'm pretty sure—was the one who first called Morrissey a "meatball," in fact, because of his criticism of Rollins over that issue. Rachael Rollins—I think—has a proclivity, in my opinion, to hold a bit of a grudge. When she became U.S. Attorney and she realized she was on the way out—well, maybe the Sandra Birchmore probe started back in May of 2022 because former chief of the Canton police—Ken Berkowitz—went to the FBI and told them that the FBI covered up—the MSP unit detailed to the Norfolk DA covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder—potentially because Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning used to work in Stoughton with Matt Farwell and Robert Devine and Billy Farwell—I think they all worked there. And furthermore—that Brian Tully, the unit commander, was partners with John Fanning for 20 years. All right, and in that regard—it is very interesting, I think—that Chief Berkowitz—who may have been very offended that his unit... So Sandra Birchmore was murdered on February 1st, 2021, at 9:23 p.m. in her apartment in Canton. Okay—on February 4th, Monday in the morning—the Canton police do a wellness check after they get a call from her—Sandra's—colleagues at the school where she worked as an administrative assistant. Now the Canton police respond—on Monday, February 4th—by Wednesday, February 6th. The Canton police have collected the following evidence in order. And if you don't believe me, you can read pages—I think 97 through 101—of the Canton Police Department audit report released in April of 2025. Point by point. Number one: the Canton police confirm—via a witness who was the maintenance worker at Sandra's apartment building—that Matt Farwell was the man on camera outside Sandra's apartment in the elevator at 9:23 p.m. on February 1st—which is exactly when Sandra died. Two: that the man was Matt Farwell, and he was the same man who helped Sandra move into her apartment. Three: that when the Canton PD went to Sandra's school, they got information that Farwell was telling people that Sandra was pregnant with his child—that he had abused her since she was a child—and that he was going to quote "take care of the problem himself" if Sandra decided to carry the baby to term. All right. All of that information—by February 6th of 2021—was passed over to the MSP. John Fanning and this whole unit—I think—really then facilitate a report sometime over the next six to 12 months that exonerates Farwell and says Sandra dies from self-harm. Well, I think that's why Ken Berkowitz blew the whistle before he died of cancer—and that's why there was a grand jury impaneled in May of 2022—and it was really about the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. Well—one—it was about Sandra Birchmore's murder. Why does that make everything so interesting? Because I think that the investigation wasn't just about who killed Sandra and why—but how was it ruled a—the result of self-harm—instead of the very obvious murder that it was. Well—that starts—2022, I think—May of 2022—the grand jury. Jessica Leslie was on the grand jury—leaker—who's going to be sentenced on October 4th of 2025. I think Jessica Leslie—ladies and gentlemen—in August of 2022 somehow leaked to Karen Read—Alan Jackson—that the Norfolk DA was dirty because they covered up—and that MSP unit—because they covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder. All right—so therefore, Alan Jackson—that's the skeleton in the closet. It wasn't what the people in the house were doing. I'm still a little suspect of who they know—but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares—nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. The big issue is that Jen was friends with Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And they—I think—they brought on the PI—Marty Kraft—and Kate Peter—to insulate their exposure from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. And so they were worried. And who would you bring in if you had covered up a murder? If you were a MSP unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids—and I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck's the perfect person be like: "Bruh, if that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these like different people that get too close to this—or we're going to be exposed for Birchmore." But let me bring it back to the point here—which is in 2022, the feds clearly were starting to poke around. And come 2023—I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept up—even in light of the national spotlight? When you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement—but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation of Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her—but if you think about it in the context of: Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore—then you understand: Karen—that's why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them—the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did—to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway—and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA—destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly—and she's a tactical fucking genius. I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely—in my opinion—bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. If you don't know what a backhand is, folks—a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface because you're dealing with a very high-level operation like the state police—who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death. But really—you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out—from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together—and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got indicted. Now—it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: this is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power and who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said: Nope—it's out of your hands. And that's what Judge Doolin did today. Someone just needed to not either be involved with Karen Read, Aidan Kearney, or the Norfolk DA—or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft—and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses—I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there. But at least for Lindsey—Judge Doolin was like: enough of this nonsense. And that's why today was such a big deal in light of that historical context—because just tracing that very insidious pattern of events over the past 18 months—you can see this became a proxy war. It was Michael Morrissey on one side with his marching soldiers: Brian Tully, Kate Peter, Marty Kraft. And then it was Karen Read and the DOJ on the other side. Okay. And their soldiers were like the Free Karen Read movement and Turtle Boy and Natalie and all these other people. This was an intelligence community proxy war. And that's why I've been trying to tell people for so long: Lindsey Gaetani was not involved. She was an unwitting pawn. These two factions both took advantage of her—including Brian Tully—who was more interested in preserving his unit's reputation than actually defending the interest of the vulnerable. In my opinion, I think Brian Tully is a terrible person. Does that mean that he's a bad person for trying to hold Karen Read accountable for John O'Keefe's death? No, of course not. He's a bad person because in what fucking world do you—as a fucking state police officer—who you—you are entrusted—not just to get the bad guys—but to protect the most fucking vulnerable? One: how do you justify what happened with Sandra Birchmore? Two: how the fuck do you get it in your fucking mind that you're going to take a 15-year unredacted extraction of a fucking vulnerable victim's cell phone and release it to a fucking defendant known for promulgating exactly that material? What fucking headspace? What satanic fucking chamber do you and Kate Peter have to be drinking blood from fucking cups in to think that that's fucking okay? Fuck you. How do you even get in the headspace where doing something like that to a fucking victim becomes acceptable. The rot in that unit—whether enabled by Morrissey or whether he didn't know about it—I don't fucking know. But the point is: the rot in that unit was so deep that they lost their fucking souls. They didn't think of victims as victims. They re-victimized victims because it was a political fucking war—and these people are so hardened, I guess, that they don't understand what it means to be vulnerable. And these were police officers—detectives—people entrusted to uphold and protect the dignity of the most vulnerable—and they fucking used victims to advance some political agenda—to deal with the fact that they covered up a fucking murder. I'm done being gentle about this. Fuck these people. And I'm not saying that it was wrong for them to investigate Karen Read. I am pleased someone tried to prosecute her. I'm pissed at them because they were thinking about it from the perspective of their own liability for an unrelated case—and they fucked everything up—and introducing Kate Peter to this shit. Oh my God. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace to the people who were hurt. It's a disgrace to the vulnerable. I frankly do not understand how Jen McCabe, Brian Tully, and Kate Peter go to bed each night. I don't get it. I don't know. Maybe there's something that shuts off the GABA-1 receptor or something and just makes you go to bed. I don't know. Never heard of such a thing. But I'm just saying: I don't know how you do it. How do you do it? But anyway—Judge Doolin—without giving a... extemporaneous, uh, bloviating cuss-based rant like I just did—instead, in my opinion, is like: fuck all of you! You're not being involved in this prosecution anymore. Someone's gonna protect this fucking woman—Lindsey Gaetani. I'm making you appoint someone! I love that man. Good for Judge Doolin. But still—we never should have gone to this point. This is incredible. With the... the... the MSP. The fact that they had a unit operating like this for so long. This is worse than what John Connolly and Whitey Bulger did. This is institutional rot that is so pervasive that it requires fundamental reform of the MSP. They're not incapable of—um, uh—solving crimes. I'm sure most of the MSP are wonderful. Anyway—my point is: I don't think the state police officers that I generally run into—or troopers—are bad people. I think most of them are wonderful. They've never been really mean to me. They do good work. They're out there protecting our roads. They stop people from speeding. They—what else do they do? They go after commercial truck violations. They investigate homicides—like, on the whole. And this is why I think we have to be careful about how we talk about this. I am not saying that the entire MSP is just rotten. I'm saying that when you have factions or sections within the institution that understand its machinations and are able to thus manipulate the bureaucratic structure and avoid accountability—you lose the confidence of everyone. And how do you think some of those good troopers feel when they have to go out there? Yes—people like me are going to smile at them and bless them and whatever—because I know they're not part of the problem. But most people look at them and they think that they're fucking hated. They don't deserve that. They literally put their lives on the line for us every day. And if we're going to give them the respect they deserve—if we're going to make the profession have the respect that it deserves—then this kind of institutional rot can't be looked at as just an embarrassment. And it can't be looked at as something that—oh, we just wish didn't happen. Maybe some guys are going to go away. No—you point at it. You scream it from the rooftops and you say: if this happens even once—then we have so failed as an institution; we must fundamentally reform from the ground up. And this wasn't just once. It was Birchmore. It was the phone extraction. It was the SA report leak over and over and over and over again. They knew the law. They were an old boys' club. They abused it. They had cover—and it was systemically enabled. And that's why I think—to save the profession of policing in Massachusetts—there needs to be a full-on unbridled discussion about how this happened—how the personalities involved were able to do what they did. And we can't be so tribalistic that because someone we support as to their views on one case, right? We cannot be so tribalistic that we just block out everything bad that they do. Or this rot will continue. And it is pernicious. It is insidious. It is invidious. It undermines the faith that citizens completely removed from this situation have in our system of government. It undermines victims' confidence in the ability to seek redress in the face of serious fucking harm—because they think the system doesn't actually care about them. It's just using them to get someone bigger. We cannot allow this to perpetuate. And the only way to fix it is to hold up situations like what happened to Birchmore—Sandra Birchmore—and what happened to Lindsey Gaetani—hold them up in the national spotlight—and say: we—the MSP—have failed you. Brian Tully failed these people. John Fanning failed these people. Nick Guarino failed these people. Yuri Bukhenik failed these people. We need to say that. We need to highlight it. We need to say: this happened even once. Therefore, we are not good enough. Not only are we not good enough—the very fact that either of these things were able to happen—the Birchmore cover-up, the phone extraction leak—is such a pervasive, systemic degradation of the faith that victims and the public have in the justice system—that our only option is to talk about this—congressional hearings. We need the State House to have congressional hearings. We need these people to answer for what they did. And we need to make sure it never happens again. And the only way you do that is by finding out what aspects of the bureaucratic structure allowed this to happen. And it's not going to be comfortable. I don't think it's going to be comfortable for anyone to talk about the fallout of any of this—but that's exactly what happened at the CCC on a smaller scale. And if this country matters—if this form of government matters—if this republic matters—then we will fix this. We will fix it together. We will address the hard questions. We will address the uncomfortable questions. We will shed our prejudices and polemical biases at the door. We will engage in no fear, no favoritism—and we will look only for the truth and nothing but it. And if you are incapable of doing that—you're contributing—either consciously or subconsciously—to the problem. It's our only option. And you can't just say: because they prosecuted Karen Read, we can't talk about anything bad that they did. That's tribalism. That's polemical. That's what drove us to this point.

Alright, here's the epic towel rant from tonight; And so that's what kind of tipped me off in real time. I was like: wait a minute. Is Judge Doolin ruling from the bench right now? And then I was like: wait a minute. He's ruling from the bench and ordering them to appoint a new prosecutor and potentially the Attorney General. Oh my word. How—what is this? I—this wasn't on my bingo card. Even now I'm just like: Oh my God, I can't believe he did that. Judge Doolin—in a good way. I'm just like: Oh my God, there is hope. And then to follow it up with: "Oh yeah, I'm thinking about a hearing on the contempt." Oh my God—you're telegraphing. You're going to have a contempt hearing after the Attorney General is potentially on the case. The other witnesses, however, are left in this position where they have this kind of not really well-funded—like kind of spastic prosecution, like the special prosecutors on the Kearney cases. Then you got the December 23rd, 2023 criminal charges against Aidan that were charged in Dedham District Court, 23rd or 26th or so. And that was for illegally—allegedly—recording Lindsey Gaetani and then submitting an edited version of the recording into court for some reason. I don't know why Aidan did that, especially apparently when there's an original version of the recording pursuant to some of the statements in court. And then also for intimidating Lindsey—for allegedly going over there on December 23rd, 2023—against Karen Read's advice and against his lawyers' advice, apparently, according to a leaked group chat message from Facebook in 2024—in May of 2024—going over to Lindsey's apartment. And then according to the affidavit from the search warrant for Karen Read's cell phone—allegedly telling Lindsey that she shouldn't cooperate with the grand jury. She should—she could remove information from her phone or something—that Aidan would get her a lawyer, but only if she agreed to meet with a lawyer only with him present, because she had, quote, "broken his trust." It just like—wild stuff. And that new grand jury, by the way, was apparently—it did go forward. And then in time it came out that it—that was about Karen and Aidan and witness intimidation and conspiracy, because Aidan Kearney—between October and November—really August and November of 2023—it started telling Lindsey Gaetani about his communications with Karen Read that included—in writing—Exhibit O to Karen Read search warrant affidavit, which says that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that in November of 2023—November 28, 2023, to be specific—that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that Karen Read and her team at ex parte conversations with former U.S. Attorney Josh Levy—which was right in the window of time that Jessica Leslie, the grand juror leaker, was leaking information. Leslie started leaking in August of 2022—which is the same month that Alan Jackson joined Karen Read's legal team. And Josh Levy—who was one of the U.S. Attorneys in charge of that grand jury—Leslie was leaking about four different cases: probably the Birchmore case, definitely the Read and O'Keefe case, definitely the CDL case. One more case. We can't really—the group of us journalists involved in this—can't really figure out. So right in the middle of that—November of 2023—Josh Levy is leaking ex parte grand jury information to Karen Read, which she's putting—she's telling Aidan Kearney about; he's putting it in writing. He just was trying to just show off for Lindsey, but you don't like—come on—like what is it? First day in the IC, bro? I'm not in the IC. I'm not part of the government. I'm a towel. But anyway—so Aidan's bragging to Lindsey, and I don't think that was a very good idea. I mean, she's brilliant and stuff, but like—why would you ever say that to her? Don't say that stuff. But anyway—like, why would you say—even if it's your significant other—unless they are read-in on the intel that you are sharing—why would you ever, ever, ever share that with someone? It exposes them to an incredible liability—which, if you love them, don't do it. It also exposes your own credibility to an incredible risk of liability. You will never be trusted by the intelligence community again. Pillow talk and honeypots are how they trap operatives. If you chase sex, they will compromise you. How can you not understand that? So if you get compromised by someone who's not an agent—just someone who's your partner and you're just telling them stuff about protected federal investigations—what do you think your reputation is going to be like among the intelligence community when you're doing that and they haven't even honeypotted you? You just voluntarily started putting this shit in writing. They're going to look at you like you are out of your mind. So anyway—Karen Read apparently is telling Aidan Kearney that she's having ex parte conversations with Josh Levy. Now, the grand jury that Leslie was leaking from was impaneled in May of 2022 when Rachael Rollins used to be U.S. Attorney in Boston. Now think about this. In 2020, Rachael Rollins and Aidan Kearney—Rachael Rollins, a hyper-liberal known for her soft-on-crime stance. We'll also hear Rollins hated Michael Morrissey. Anyway, Rollins worked with Turtle Boy to send a Republican operative named Rayla Campbell to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events in the Senate race against Ed Markey so that Ed Markey could win the Senate seat. Now, interestingly enough, Rachael Rollins then got appointed to the position of U.S. Attorney right after that. And you might say: well, Grant, that's a stretch. No, no—because then within a few months, Rachael Rollins—part of the reason she gets thrown out of office by the DOJ OIG—is because she attends an event in Andover with—guess who?—Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of the then-president who appointed her. Now, what does that mean? Well, if you really think about the geopolitical implications of the 2020 Senate race between Ed Markey in Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy Jr.—well, one of the things you're going to realize is that—think about 2020. The leadership around Biden did not know that the chaos of 2024 was going to happen with Kamala and Biden not really being up to it. You're thinking ahead to 2024. Why? Who's your biggest target if you are a sitting Democrat and you're worried about a primary challenge four years from now? Well, what if JFK's—what is it—nephew or whatever it is—is in the House of Representatives? And what if JFK started his career in the House of Representatives? And what if that new young Kennedy with red hair and sort of a photogenic face? What if he is running for JFK's old Senate seat? What if he's on the same exact trajectory as JFK? Oh, we can't have that. We—as the Biden White House—cannot have Joe Kennedy Jr. beating Ed Markey for Senate. And how it got to the point that somebody talked to Rachael Rollins and she came up with the brilliant idea to reach out to Turtle Boy so that Turtle Boy would talk to Rayla Campbell to send her to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events to help Markey—I don't know. But that's why I think Rachael Rollins became U.S. Attorney—someone who, in my opinion, was uniquely unqualified and fundamentally unethically un-predisposed to being able to run that office. Who then in turn immediately tried to interfere in the 2022 Suffolk DA primary between Kevin Hayden and Ricardo O'Rourke—because Rollins wanted to see her progressive vision continue through O'Rourke—so she worked with Daniel Medwed—the same professor who was involved with advocating the media on behalf of Karen Read's team. She worked with Daniel Medwed to get a story leaked about how a non-existent federal probe into Kevin Hayden—to increase Ricardo O'Rourke's chances in the Suffolk DA primary. Sound familiar? Oh, hell yeah. So anyway—between November of 2022 and May of 2023—you got this weird situation where Rollins knows she's getting forced out; Levy's going to take over the office. The people who take Rollins out are Josh Levy, Bill Abley, and still head of the criminal division—Dustin Chao, I think—still head of the public integrity unit, and then executive officer who is also the press secretary or the communications director of the office. Those four people—without being named; they're named by title—were the people who cooperated with the DOJ to take Rollins out—DOJ-OIG to take Rollins out. Now, why is that interesting? Well, one—because it shows that people in that office knew that Rachael Rollins had a proclivity for weaponizing leaks about non-existent federal probes to interfere in particular district attorney races and matters. Second—Rachael Rollins and Michael Morrissey had a bifurcated history of ten years. One: Rachael Rollins had this list of 25 crimes she wouldn't prosecute, and other DAs critiqued her—not just Michael Morrissey but others. Rollins—I'm pretty sure—was the one who first called Morrissey a "meatball," in fact, because of his criticism of Rollins over that issue. Rachael Rollins—I think—has a proclivity, in my opinion, to hold a bit of a grudge. When she became U.S. Attorney and she realized she was on the way out—well, maybe the Sandra Birchmore probe started back in May of 2022 because former chief of the Canton police—Ken Berkowitz—went to the FBI and told them that the FBI covered up—the MSP unit detailed to the Norfolk DA covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder—potentially because Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning used to work in Stoughton with Matt Farwell and Robert Devine and Billy Farwell—I think they all worked there. And furthermore—that Brian Tully, the unit commander, was partners with John Fanning for 20 years. All right, and in that regard—it is very interesting, I think—that Chief Berkowitz—who may have been very offended that his unit... So Sandra Birchmore was murdered on February 1st, 2021, at 9:23 p.m. in her apartment in Canton. Okay—on February 4th, Monday in the morning—the Canton police do a wellness check after they get a call from her—Sandra's—colleagues at the school where she worked as an administrative assistant. Now the Canton police respond—on Monday, February 4th—by Wednesday, February 6th. The Canton police have collected the following evidence in order. And if you don't believe me, you can read pages—I think 97 through 101—of the Canton Police Department audit report released in April of 2025. Point by point. Number one: the Canton police confirm—via a witness who was the maintenance worker at Sandra's apartment building—that Matt Farwell was the man on camera outside Sandra's apartment in the elevator at 9:23 p.m. on February 1st—which is exactly when Sandra died. Two: that the man was Matt Farwell, and he was the same man who helped Sandra move into her apartment. Three: that when the Canton PD went to Sandra's school, they got information that Farwell was telling people that Sandra was pregnant with his child—that he had abused her since she was a child—and that he was going to quote "take care of the problem himself" if Sandra decided to carry the baby to term. All right. All of that information—by February 6th of 2021—was passed over to the MSP. John Fanning and this whole unit—I think—really then facilitate a report sometime over the next six to 12 months that exonerates Farwell and says Sandra dies from self-harm. Well, I think that's why Ken Berkowitz blew the whistle before he died of cancer—and that's why there was a grand jury impaneled in May of 2022—and it was really about the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. Well—one—it was about Sandra Birchmore's murder. Why does that make everything so interesting? Because I think that the investigation wasn't just about who killed Sandra and why—but how was it ruled a—the result of self-harm—instead of the very obvious murder that it was. Well—that starts—2022, I think—May of 2022—the grand jury. Jessica Leslie was on the grand jury—leaker—who's going to be sentenced on October 4th of 2025. I think Jessica Leslie—ladies and gentlemen—in August of 2022 somehow leaked to Karen Read—Alan Jackson—that the Norfolk DA was dirty because they covered up—and that MSP unit—because they covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder. All right—so therefore, Alan Jackson—that's the skeleton in the closet. It wasn't what the people in the house were doing. I'm still a little suspect of who they know—but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares—nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. The big issue is that Jen was friends with Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And they—I think—they brought on the PI—Marty Kraft—and Kate Peter—to insulate their exposure from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. And so they were worried. And who would you bring in if you had covered up a murder? If you were a MSP unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids—and I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck's the perfect person be like: "Bruh, if that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these like different people that get too close to this—or we're going to be exposed for Birchmore." But let me bring it back to the point here—which is in 2022, the feds clearly were starting to poke around. And come 2023—I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept up—even in light of the national spotlight? When you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement—but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation of Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her—but if you think about it in the context of: Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore—then you understand: Karen—that's why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them—the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did—to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway—and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA—destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly—and she's a tactical fucking genius. I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely—in my opinion—bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. If you don't know what a backhand is, folks—a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface because you're dealing with a very high-level operation like the state police—who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death. But really—you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out—from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together—and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got indicted. Now—it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: this is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power and who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said: Nope—it's out of your hands. And that's what Judge Doolin did today. Someone just needed to not either be involved with Karen Read, Aidan Kearney, or the Norfolk DA—or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft—and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses—I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there. But at least for Lindsey—Judge Doolin was like: enough of this nonsense. And that's why today was such a big deal in light of that historical context—because just tracing that very insidious pattern of events over the past 18 months—you can see this became a proxy war. It was Michael Morrissey on one side with his marching soldiers: Brian Tully, Kate Peter, Marty Kraft. And then it was Karen Read and the DOJ on the other side. Okay. And their soldiers were like the Free Karen Read movement and Turtle Boy and Natalie and all these other people. This was an intelligence community proxy war. And that's why I've been trying to tell people for so long: Lindsey Gaetani was not involved. She was an unwitting pawn. These two factions both took advantage of her—including Brian Tully—who was more interested in preserving his unit's reputation than actually defending the interest of the vulnerable. In my opinion, I think Brian Tully is a terrible person. Does that mean that he's a bad person for trying to hold Karen Read accountable for John O'Keefe's death? No, of course not. He's a bad person because in what fucking world do you—as a fucking state police officer—who you—you are entrusted—not just to get the bad guys—but to protect the most fucking vulnerable? One: how do you justify what happened with Sandra Birchmore? Two: how the fuck do you get it in your fucking mind that you're going to take a 15-year unredacted extraction of a fucking vulnerable victim's cell phone and release it to a fucking defendant known for promulgating exactly that material? What fucking headspace? What satanic fucking chamber do you and Kate Peter have to be drinking blood from fucking cups in to think that that's fucking okay? Fuck you. How do you even get in the headspace where doing something like that to a fucking victim becomes acceptable. The rot in that unit—whether enabled by Morrissey or whether he didn't know about it—I don't fucking know. But the point is: the rot in that unit was so deep that they lost their fucking souls. They didn't think of victims as victims. They re-victimized victims because it was a political fucking war—and these people are so hardened, I guess, that they don't understand what it means to be vulnerable. And these were police officers—detectives—people entrusted to uphold and protect the dignity of the most vulnerable—and they fucking used victims to advance some political agenda—to deal with the fact that they covered up a fucking murder. I'm done being gentle about this. Fuck these people. And I'm not saying that it was wrong for them to investigate Karen Read. I am pleased someone tried to prosecute her. I'm pissed at them because they were thinking about it from the perspective of their own liability for an unrelated case—and they fucked everything up—and introducing Kate Peter to this shit. Oh my God. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace to the people who were hurt. It's a disgrace to the vulnerable. I frankly do not understand how Jen McCabe, Brian Tully, and Kate Peter go to bed each night. I don't get it. I don't know. Maybe there's something that shuts off the GABA-1 receptor or something and just makes you go to bed. I don't know. Never heard of such a thing. But I'm just saying: I don't know how you do it. How do you do it? But anyway—Judge Doolin—without giving a... extemporaneous, uh, bloviating cuss-based rant like I just did—instead, in my opinion, is like: fuck all of you! You're not being involved in this prosecution anymore. Someone's gonna protect this fucking woman—Lindsey Gaetani. I'm making you appoint someone! I love that man. Good for Judge Doolin. But still—we never should have gone to this point. This is incredible. With the... the... the MSP. The fact that they had a unit operating like this for so long. This is worse than what John Connolly and Whitey Bulger did. This is institutional rot that is so pervasive that it requires fundamental reform of the MSP. They're not incapable of—um, uh—solving crimes. I'm sure most of the MSP are wonderful. Anyway—my point is: I don't think the state police officers that I generally run into—or troopers—are bad people. I think most of them are wonderful. They've never been really mean to me. They do good work. They're out there protecting our roads. They stop people from speeding. They—what else do they do? They go after commercial truck violations. They investigate homicides—like, on the whole. And this is why I think we have to be careful about how we talk about this. I am not saying that the entire MSP is just rotten. I'm saying that when you have factions or sections within the institution that understand its machinations and are able to thus manipulate the bureaucratic structure and avoid accountability—you lose the confidence of everyone. And how do you think some of those good troopers feel when they have to go out there? Yes—people like me are going to smile at them and bless them and whatever—because I know they're not part of the problem. But most people look at them and they think that they're fucking hated. They don't deserve that. They literally put their lives on the line for us every day. And if we're going to give them the respect they deserve—if we're going to make the profession have the respect that it deserves—then this kind of institutional rot can't be looked at as just an embarrassment. And it can't be looked at as something that—oh, we just wish didn't happen. Maybe some guys are going to go away. No—you point at it. You scream it from the rooftops and you say: if this happens even once—then we have so failed as an institution; we must fundamentally reform from the ground up. And this wasn't just once. It was Birchmore. It was the phone extraction. It was the SA report leak over and over and over and over again. They knew the law. They were an old boys' club. They abused it. They had cover—and it was systemically enabled. And that's why I think—to save the profession of policing in Massachusetts—there needs to be a full-on unbridled discussion about how this happened—how the personalities involved were able to do what they did. And we can't be so tribalistic that because someone we support as to their views on one case, right? We cannot be so tribalistic that we just block out everything bad that they do. Or this rot will continue. And it is pernicious. It is insidious. It is invidious. It undermines the faith that citizens completely removed from this situation have in our system of government. It undermines victims' confidence in the ability to seek redress in the face of serious fucking harm—because they think the system doesn't actually care about them. It's just using them to get someone bigger. We cannot allow this to perpetuate. And the only way to fix it is to hold up situations like what happened to Birchmore—Sandra Birchmore—and what happened to Lindsey Gaetani—hold them up in the national spotlight—and say: we—the MSP—have failed you. Brian Tully failed these people. John Fanning failed these people. Nick Guarino failed these people. Yuri Bukhenik failed these people. We need to say that. We need to highlight it. We need to say: this happened even once. Therefore, we are not good enough. Not only are we not good enough—the very fact that either of these things were able to happen—the Birchmore cover-up, the phone extraction leak—is such a pervasive, systemic degradation of the faith that victims and the public have in the justice system—that our only option is to talk about this—congressional hearings. We need the State House to have congressional hearings. We need these people to answer for what they did. And we need to make sure it never happens again. And the only way you do that is by finding out what aspects of the bureaucratic structure allowed this to happen. And it's not going to be comfortable. I don't think it's going to be comfortable for anyone to talk about the fallout of any of this—but that's exactly what happened at the CCC on a smaller scale. And if this country matters—if this form of government matters—if this republic matters—then we will fix this. We will fix it together. We will address the hard questions. We will address the uncomfortable questions. We will shed our prejudices and polemical biases at the door. We will engage in no fear, no favoritism—and we will look only for the truth and nothing but it. And if you are incapable of doing that—you're contributing—either consciously or subconsciously—to the problem. It's our only option. And you can't just say: because they prosecuted Karen Read, we can't talk about anything bad that they did. That's tribalism. That's polemical. That's what drove us to this point.

Grant Smith Ellis

36,552 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Why is it, that everywhere I go, it is White politicians that want to help hide the industrial scale gang rape of working class White girls? There is no Muslim bloc vote in Barrow. So why? My thoughts on what I witnessed last night in Barrow. _________ Secrecy and Shame in Barrow: Labour Councillors Vote to Block Gang Rape Inquiry While Instructing Survivors to Shut Up and Stay Silent In Barrow Town Hall, survivors of grooming gangs were instructed to shut up and sit in silence as Labour Councillors voted to help cover up the gang rape of the town's children. When a motion to include Barrow in the national inquiry came before the council, Labour councillors blocked it while Mayor Fred Chatfield tried to unlawfully stop the cameras from recording what was happening. When the team of three newly elected Reform councillors demanded a recorded vote so the public could see who stood where on this critical issue, Labour voted to prevent it, ensuring their names would be hidden from the record. A Simple Motion for Truth The motion, tabled by Reform UK councillor Sienna Churcher, was straightforward in its ask. It welcomed the National Inquiry announced in June 2025 and requested that Barrow Borough Council write to the Home Secretary, formally asking for the town to be included amongst those examined for historic and ongoing grooming gang activity. The motion recognised the courage of whistleblowers and survivors, called for transparency in all correspondence, and demanded public accountability. For survivors in Barrow who have lived with the knowledge that their town has been scarred by organised rape gangs just like Rotherham, Rochdale, Oldham, and Telford, this represented hope for official recognition of their suffering. Especially as, In February this year, that suffering was finally acknowledged in court when the truth was laid bare. The Takeaway That Became a Trafficking Hub Three brothers, Nasir, Naser, and Nabeel Miah, were convicted of horrific child sexual offences committed in Barrow and Leeds between 2008 and 2016. They targeted teenage girls, many as young as 14, who were groomed, abused, and traded like commodities in what the Crown Prosecution Service described as systematic sexual exploitation. The brothers had moved to Barrow to work in a family-owned takeaway that became, in Judge Unsworth's words, a "hub of criminality." Girls, some still in school uniforms, were picked up in cars, taken upstairs, plied with alcohol and drugs, and assaulted on what the court heard described as "scabby beds." Judge Unsworth, sentencing the men to a combined 70 years in prison, delivered words that should have resonated through every corner of Barrow's political establishment. "In Barrow, the brothers were not acting in the shadows but acting in plain sight. Each of the victims was vulnerable, and the brothers were confident that if the girls blew the whistle, they would not be believed." Instead of heeding that judicial warning about institutional blindness, Labour councillors chose to repeat the same pattern of denial that enabled the abuse in the first place. Because what Judge Unsworth's court had established was far worse than isolated incidents. A rape gang had been operating in Barrow. Men were coming to Barrow specifically to rape children. Children from Barrow were being trafficked to other towns and cities to be raped. The takeaway wasn't just a business but the centre of a trafficking network that moved vulnerable girls across county lines for sexual exploitation. The court heard how the Miah brothers had treated teenage girls as commodities, passing them between abusers and transporting them to Leeds. The Miah brothers didn't act in the shadows but acted in plain sight while local institutions looked the other way. Last night, those same institutions did it again. The Wrecking Amendment Labour's response to the original motion was to gut it entirely. Councillor Andy Coles proposed an amendment, seconded by William McEwan, that removed the specific call to write to the Home Secretary and replaced it with procedural camouflage about "allowing the independent commission and survivors to get on with the inquiry." Reform Councillor Colin Rudd called it exactly what it was. "This amendment adds no value. It undermines the motion. It sabotages the motion. This is a wrecking amendment." The councillor was correct. This was sabotage dressed up as sensitivity, taking a concrete act of solidarity and replacing it with the empty comfort of hoping someone else would act. The victims of the Miah brothers deserved action, not hope. The Mayor Who Tried to Stop the Cameras As the debate intensified, and Cllr Rudd quoted Judge Unsworth's words about acting "in plain sight" as a warning about institutional complacency., Mayor Fred Chatfield intervened to stop filming. "It's a public meeting," came the reply. "You've never asked permission to film," the Mayor snapped back. The exchange summed up everything wrong with how power operates in Barrow. When confronted with truth, the instinct wasn't reflection but control. Yet what Mayor Chatfield attempted wasn't just politically damaging but illegal. Under The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, introduced through the Localism Act 2011, members of the public and press have a statutory right to film, record, and report on all public council meetings. The legislation is unambiguous. "Council meetings are public meetings. The press and public have a right to attend, and to film, record, blog, or tweet during those meetings." No permission is required. No consent is necessary. The only exception would be if filming genuinely disrupted proceedings through shouting or obstruction, none of which occurred. Mayor Chatfield's instruction that filming required his permission violated both the letter and spirit of the Localism Act, which was designed to ensure democratic transparency. The Mayor should now resign for his actions. By attempting to silence the cameras, Mayor Chatfield didn't just betray the survivors watching from the gallery but broke the law designed to protect their right to witness democracy in action. The Vote They Didn't Want You to See When the Reform councillors called for a recorded vote so the public could know who supported Labour's amendment and who opposed it, Labour again chose secrecy. Under standing orders, a recorded vote requires majority support. Labour used this procedural rule to block transparency, ensuring their names would not appear in the public record. "So the councillors who stopped the inquiry can hide who they are," muttered one member of the public. "Disgraceful." "Shame on you." The chamber doors were closed for the final vote. The Survivors Watching Among those in the public gallery were women who had lived through the horrors being discussed. Some had waited years for recognition. Others still live in the same town where their abusers walked free. They listened as councillors downplayed the motion, softened the language, and eventually killed it entirely. Councillor Colin Rudd spoke directly to the chamber's shame. "Every person in every office, in every department, in every institution in this town failed these girls... and you're doing it again." His words carried the weight of judicial truth, but they didn't move the majority. The vote carried, the motion died, and the survivors left that hall knowing nothing had changed. The Labour Playbook of Denial What happened in Barrow follows the same playbook used across Britain's Labour strongholds when grooming gang scandals surface. Whether it's Oldham, Rotherham, or Telford, the institutional response never varies. Resist external scrutiny, prefer internal reviews that can be controlled, deploy procedural manoeuvring to protect the institution over the victims. The formula never varies. Protect reputations over truth, deploy bureaucratic language to avoid concrete action, and when challenged, retreat behind phrases like "independent commissions" as though process can substitute for courage. The questions are obvious. If everyone truly wants accountability, why block a letter to the Home Secretary? Why stop the filming? Why refuse a recorded vote? Because they understand that public accountability requires public records, and public records create public consequences. The Continuing Cover-Up Last night's meeting exposed the mechanism by which grooming gang scandals are managed across Britain's local authorities. This wasn't incompetence or confusion but a deliberate strategy deployed with surgical precision. Here's how it works. Acknowledge the problem exists but only after court proceedings make denial impossible. Express concern and sympathy while blocking any external examination that might reveal institutional culpability. Deploy procedural manoeuvring to prevent public accountability by killing recorded votes, stopping filming, and sanitising minutes. The pattern is so consistent it might as well be written in a manual. Oldham Council used identical tactics when faced with demands for transparency over Operation Augusta. Rotherham's political leadership employed the same playbook during the Casey Review fallout. The strategy works because it allows politicians to appear concerned while ensuring nothing changes. But Barrow's case reveals something more disturbing. The Miah brothers operated their trafficking network from 2008 to 2016, eight years of systematic abuse while local institutions looked the other way. Children were being transported across county lines for rape while Barrow Council carried on with business as usual. When survivors finally saw their abusers jailed, they might have hoped for institutional recognition and reform. Instead, they got Andy Coles and William McEwan drafting amendments to avoid external scrutiny. They got Fred Chatfield trying to silence cameras. They got Labour councillors voting to hide their names from public records. This goes beyond political embarrassment. It's institutional betrayal that mirrors the same complacency that enabled the Miah brothers to operate with impunity. The children who were trafficked from that Barrow takeaway deserved better then. The survivors watching from the gallery deserved better last night. It is now up to the people of Barrow to decide if they want better politicians representing them. _________ This isn't about politics anymore. It's about preservation of a ruling clique defending its own survival, even if it means abandoning the very people they swore to protect. The nation does not need silence. It needs truth. This is not only a child abuse scandal. It is a crisis of truth, trust and governance in modern Britain. I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. I cannot do this on my own. I need you to stand with me and help make sure the National Inquiry we have all fought for is not a whitewash. We’re running out of time. Without the numbers, they will win. It’s as simple as that. 🔴 Subscribe to my newsletter – it’s free. Or support the work for just 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Whatever you do, please subscribe; 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No corporate sponsors. No party machine. Just you and thousands of ordinary people who know what’s at stake. We’ve come this far. Help finish it. Raja Miah MBE

Why is it, that everywhere I go, it is White politicians that want to help hide the industrial scale gang rape of working class White girls? There is no Muslim bloc vote in Barrow. So why? My thoughts on what I witnessed last night in Barrow. _ Secrecy and Shame in Barrow: Labour Councillors Vote to Block Gang Rape Inquiry While Instructing Survivors to Shut Up and Stay Silent In Barrow Town Hall, survivors of grooming gangs were instructed to shut up and sit in silence as Labour Councillors voted to help cover up the gang rape of the town's children. When a motion to include Barrow in the national inquiry came before the council, Labour councillors blocked it while Mayor Fred Chatfield tried to unlawfully stop the cameras from recording what was happening. When the team of three newly elected Reform councillors demanded a recorded vote so the public could see who stood where on this critical issue, Labour voted to prevent it, ensuring their names would be hidden from the record. A Simple Motion for Truth The motion, tabled by Reform UK councillor Sienna Churcher, was straightforward in its ask. It welcomed the National Inquiry announced in June 2025 and requested that Barrow Borough Council write to the Home Secretary, formally asking for the town to be included amongst those examined for historic and ongoing grooming gang activity. The motion recognised the courage of whistleblowers and survivors, called for transparency in all correspondence, and demanded public accountability. For survivors in Barrow who have lived with the knowledge that their town has been scarred by organised rape gangs just like Rotherham, Rochdale, Oldham, and Telford, this represented hope for official recognition of their suffering. Especially as, In February this year, that suffering was finally acknowledged in court when the truth was laid bare. The Takeaway That Became a Trafficking Hub Three brothers, Nasir, Naser, and Nabeel Miah, were convicted of horrific child sexual offences committed in Barrow and Leeds between 2008 and 2016. They targeted teenage girls, many as young as 14, who were groomed, abused, and traded like commodities in what the Crown Prosecution Service described as systematic sexual exploitation. The brothers had moved to Barrow to work in a family-owned takeaway that became, in Judge Unsworth's words, a "hub of criminality." Girls, some still in school uniforms, were picked up in cars, taken upstairs, plied with alcohol and drugs, and assaulted on what the court heard described as "scabby beds." Judge Unsworth, sentencing the men to a combined 70 years in prison, delivered words that should have resonated through every corner of Barrow's political establishment. "In Barrow, the brothers were not acting in the shadows but acting in plain sight. Each of the victims was vulnerable, and the brothers were confident that if the girls blew the whistle, they would not be believed." Instead of heeding that judicial warning about institutional blindness, Labour councillors chose to repeat the same pattern of denial that enabled the abuse in the first place. Because what Judge Unsworth's court had established was far worse than isolated incidents. A rape gang had been operating in Barrow. Men were coming to Barrow specifically to rape children. Children from Barrow were being trafficked to other towns and cities to be raped. The takeaway wasn't just a business but the centre of a trafficking network that moved vulnerable girls across county lines for sexual exploitation. The court heard how the Miah brothers had treated teenage girls as commodities, passing them between abusers and transporting them to Leeds. The Miah brothers didn't act in the shadows but acted in plain sight while local institutions looked the other way. Last night, those same institutions did it again. The Wrecking Amendment Labour's response to the original motion was to gut it entirely. Councillor Andy Coles proposed an amendment, seconded by William McEwan, that removed the specific call to write to the Home Secretary and replaced it with procedural camouflage about "allowing the independent commission and survivors to get on with the inquiry." Reform Councillor Colin Rudd called it exactly what it was. "This amendment adds no value. It undermines the motion. It sabotages the motion. This is a wrecking amendment." The councillor was correct. This was sabotage dressed up as sensitivity, taking a concrete act of solidarity and replacing it with the empty comfort of hoping someone else would act. The victims of the Miah brothers deserved action, not hope. The Mayor Who Tried to Stop the Cameras As the debate intensified, and Cllr Rudd quoted Judge Unsworth's words about acting "in plain sight" as a warning about institutional complacency., Mayor Fred Chatfield intervened to stop filming. "It's a public meeting," came the reply. "You've never asked permission to film," the Mayor snapped back. The exchange summed up everything wrong with how power operates in Barrow. When confronted with truth, the instinct wasn't reflection but control. Yet what Mayor Chatfield attempted wasn't just politically damaging but illegal. Under The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, introduced through the Localism Act 2011, members of the public and press have a statutory right to film, record, and report on all public council meetings. The legislation is unambiguous. "Council meetings are public meetings. The press and public have a right to attend, and to film, record, blog, or tweet during those meetings." No permission is required. No consent is necessary. The only exception would be if filming genuinely disrupted proceedings through shouting or obstruction, none of which occurred. Mayor Chatfield's instruction that filming required his permission violated both the letter and spirit of the Localism Act, which was designed to ensure democratic transparency. The Mayor should now resign for his actions. By attempting to silence the cameras, Mayor Chatfield didn't just betray the survivors watching from the gallery but broke the law designed to protect their right to witness democracy in action. The Vote They Didn't Want You to See When the Reform councillors called for a recorded vote so the public could know who supported Labour's amendment and who opposed it, Labour again chose secrecy. Under standing orders, a recorded vote requires majority support. Labour used this procedural rule to block transparency, ensuring their names would not appear in the public record. "So the councillors who stopped the inquiry can hide who they are," muttered one member of the public. "Disgraceful." "Shame on you." The chamber doors were closed for the final vote. The Survivors Watching Among those in the public gallery were women who had lived through the horrors being discussed. Some had waited years for recognition. Others still live in the same town where their abusers walked free. They listened as councillors downplayed the motion, softened the language, and eventually killed it entirely. Councillor Colin Rudd spoke directly to the chamber's shame. "Every person in every office, in every department, in every institution in this town failed these girls... and you're doing it again." His words carried the weight of judicial truth, but they didn't move the majority. The vote carried, the motion died, and the survivors left that hall knowing nothing had changed. The Labour Playbook of Denial What happened in Barrow follows the same playbook used across Britain's Labour strongholds when grooming gang scandals surface. Whether it's Oldham, Rotherham, or Telford, the institutional response never varies. Resist external scrutiny, prefer internal reviews that can be controlled, deploy procedural manoeuvring to protect the institution over the victims. The formula never varies. Protect reputations over truth, deploy bureaucratic language to avoid concrete action, and when challenged, retreat behind phrases like "independent commissions" as though process can substitute for courage. The questions are obvious. If everyone truly wants accountability, why block a letter to the Home Secretary? Why stop the filming? Why refuse a recorded vote? Because they understand that public accountability requires public records, and public records create public consequences. The Continuing Cover-Up Last night's meeting exposed the mechanism by which grooming gang scandals are managed across Britain's local authorities. This wasn't incompetence or confusion but a deliberate strategy deployed with surgical precision. Here's how it works. Acknowledge the problem exists but only after court proceedings make denial impossible. Express concern and sympathy while blocking any external examination that might reveal institutional culpability. Deploy procedural manoeuvring to prevent public accountability by killing recorded votes, stopping filming, and sanitising minutes. The pattern is so consistent it might as well be written in a manual. Oldham Council used identical tactics when faced with demands for transparency over Operation Augusta. Rotherham's political leadership employed the same playbook during the Casey Review fallout. The strategy works because it allows politicians to appear concerned while ensuring nothing changes. But Barrow's case reveals something more disturbing. The Miah brothers operated their trafficking network from 2008 to 2016, eight years of systematic abuse while local institutions looked the other way. Children were being transported across county lines for rape while Barrow Council carried on with business as usual. When survivors finally saw their abusers jailed, they might have hoped for institutional recognition and reform. Instead, they got Andy Coles and William McEwan drafting amendments to avoid external scrutiny. They got Fred Chatfield trying to silence cameras. They got Labour councillors voting to hide their names from public records. This goes beyond political embarrassment. It's institutional betrayal that mirrors the same complacency that enabled the Miah brothers to operate with impunity. The children who were trafficked from that Barrow takeaway deserved better then. The survivors watching from the gallery deserved better last night. It is now up to the people of Barrow to decide if they want better politicians representing them. _ This isn't about politics anymore. It's about preservation of a ruling clique defending its own survival, even if it means abandoning the very people they swore to protect. The nation does not need silence. It needs truth. This is not only a child abuse scandal. It is a crisis of truth, trust and governance in modern Britain. I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. I cannot do this on my own. I need you to stand with me and help make sure the National Inquiry we have all fought for is not a whitewash. We’re running out of time. Without the numbers, they will win. It’s as simple as that. 🔴 Subscribe to my newsletter – it’s free. Or support the work for just 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Whatever you do, please subscribe; 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No corporate sponsors. No party machine. Just you and thousands of ordinary people who know what’s at stake. We’ve come this far. Help finish it. Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

104,701 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten