Cheshire/Shropshire etc
Joined May 2009
- Tweets28.4K
- Following2K
- Followers2.5K
- Likes12.3K
Den Leonard retweeted
A new petition has launched, to tell parliament to respect the decision in 2016 and not try to reverse Brexit with another referendum.
The last rejoin EU petition got 112,000 signatures. Let's smash it out the park and go way above that figure.
petition.parliament.uk/petit…
Den Leonard retweeted
😳😳
I am afraid this man is absolutely right and there is a huge problem coming our way.
😱
Den Leonard retweeted
Glückwunsch, Berlin und Brüssel! Operation „Deindustrialisierung“ läuft nach Plan. Der Stern verglüht nicht, er zieht nur um. Mercedes stoppt ALLE Investitionen in Deutschland. Während hier über die 35-Stunden-Woche philosophiert wird, baut man E-Autos in Ungarn.
Man muss diese wirtschaftspolitische Meisterleistung einfach anerkennen:
Wir haben ein Land so teuer, so bürokratisch und so überreguliert gemacht, dass selbst unsere absoluten Vorzeige-Konzerne endgültig die Reißleine ziehen.
Produktionsvorstand Michael Schiebe bringt es knallhart auf den Punkt:
„Wir haben im Vorstand gemeinsam entschieden, alle weiteren Investitionen in die deutschen Standorte zu stoppen.“
Lasst das kurz sacken.
Kein frisches Geld mehr für das Herz der deutschen Autoindustrie.
Stattdessen ist das Management gezwungen, im Detail zu prüfen, welche Standorte man sich in Deutschland überhaupt noch leisten kann.
Der Grund?
Lohnkosten, die in der Produktion teilweise bis zu fünfmal höher sind als an osteuropäischen Standorten, exorbitante Energiepreise und eine EU-Regulierungswut, die Unternehmen nur noch fesselt.
Konzernchef Källenius sagt es überdeutlich:
„Europa ist als Standort für Investitionen und Produktion zu teuer und zu komplex geworden.“
Und wie reagieren die Gewerkschaften auf den Umstand, dass sich der operative Gewinn der Pkw-Sparte im ersten Halbjahr 2026 mal eben halbiert hat?
Sie verteidigen verbissen die 35-Stunden-Woche.
Mehrarbeit ohne Lohnausgleich zur Rettung der eigenen Arbeitsplätze?
Kommt nicht infrage.
Die Konsequenz ist brutal, aber logisch:
Die Milliarden für neue elektrische Fertigungen fließen nach Ungarn.
Kecskemét freut sich über den massiven Ausbau und die Batteriemontage, während hierzulande die Werke zur Disposition stehen.
Wir wickeln unsere eigene Schlüsselindustrie ab, getrieben von ideologischer Politik und realitätsfernen Privilegien.
Wer jetzt noch von einem grünen Wirtschaftswunder träumt, ist endgültig im Tiefschlaf.
#Mercedes #Merz #Deindustrialisierung
apollo-news.net/eu-regulieru…
Den Leonard retweeted
🚨 Commissie in paniek als ik de feiten over de islam en vrouwenrechten benoem.
De voorzitter grijpt in en wil me de mond snoeren.
De islam is een totalitaire ideologie en vormt een gevaar voor onze samenleving. Ik heb het recht, en de verplichting, dit te benoemen.
Den Leonard retweeted
This is government gaslighting to a high degree.
1. It’s not a new announcement. The Norfolk East and West offshore wind projects were announced earlier this year as part of the AR7 round of contracts.
2. No way does it bring down prices. Those behind it, energy giant RWE + global investors KKR, were guaranteed an above-market strike price of £91.20/MWh based on 2024 prices — indexed linked for 20 years. That guarantee is already worth £97/MWh in 2026. This is v expensive energy.
3. What is new is that the costs of developing offshore wind have soared. So the government has now had to chip in £1 billion of the £12 billion investment needed from the National Wealth [Destruction] Fund. So more state subsidy on top of the massive subsidies for two foreign companies implicit in the price guarantees embedded in AR7.
4. Far from cheaper electricity this embeds high-cost electricity in the system for 20 years.
5. So much for the Chancellor’s Budget pledge to ‘only build new projects when they lower prices’. This does the opposite — and at enormous expense to the taxpayer and electricity user.
Gaslighting indeed.
Den Leonard retweeted
On Monday, Ed Miliband took to social media to lament that rain had waterlogged tents in Gaza. "Heartbreaking," he called it, vowing that Britain "will not rest until we bring an end to the intolerable suffering".
Meanwhile, 13 American states with a combined GDP of more than $6 trillion have threatened economic retaliation over our sanctions on Israel. Their attorneys general accuse Britain and the Netherlands of having "aligned themselves with the policy objectives of terrorist organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah". British firms could be barred from state contracts and American public money pulled from British businesses. On the BBC? Not a dicky-bird.
And for what? Israel has downgraded our consulate in East Jerusalem and shut British officers out of the Gaza coordination hub in Kiryat Gat. Having just returned from Israel, I can tell you that Britain is now seen there as a comical irrelevance.
The ultimate irony? Reports from Gaza suggest the tents may have flooded because Hamas obstructed a project to provide sturdier shelters.
Milibandism, if you will. My latest column for the @Telegraph:
telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/11…
Den Leonard retweeted
Dr. Phil takes them to school.
I love the no bullshit way he does this! He told them there's no looking back at hundreds of years of conflict to try and justify not condemning the October 7th terrorist attack by Hamas. There's right and wrong and it was WRONG!!!
Den Leonard retweeted
Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
Den Leonard retweeted
'The Prime Minister makes these commitments following Russell Brand...every one of those [grooming gangs] survivors feel like they're being trampled on again'
Grooming gangs whistleblower @MaggieOliverUK on taking the Government to court over failure to implement recommendations
Den Leonard retweeted
Reform UK’s Joe Martin has been censored and silenced in the Welsh Senedd.
His crime was to comment against the narrative on demographic change and mass migration.
An elected representative, chosen by the public, will not be allowed to speak in the chamber until he apologises. But why should he?
You don’t have to agree with him to see what happening… we don’t have free speech, we have permitted speech!
Den Leonard retweeted
Polly Tearooms in Marlborough closes after 114 years. For the same reasons that all businesses are struggling: NI rise, minimum wage, taxes, regulations.
Our rulers can’t begin to imagine what it’s like to run a small enterprise within tight profit margins.
Den Leonard retweeted
The BBC’s sudden discovery of a Superpower battle over energy is a convenient fairytale designed to shield Whitehall from the scene of its own crime. British households are not the collateral damage of American gas markets or Chinese supply chains; they are the victims of a fifteen-year bipartisan political consensus that deliberately decommissioned this country’s national defence. The £460 surge hitting domestic bills is not a force of nature. It is the invoice for a political class that views energy sovereignty not as a duty of state, but as an embarrassing relic to be traded away for fleeting applause at international climate summits.
To understand the sheer scale of this betrayal, you have to look at the historical timeline of Conservative capitulation. Long before Rishi Sunak and Claire Coutinho were rubber-stamping the managed decline of the North Sea, the Tory government committed one of the most staggering acts of economic self-sabotage in modern governance: the 2017 closure of the Rough gas storage facility. To save a rounding error in the Treasury budget, ministers permanently destroyed Britain’s primary strategic gas reserve. They stripped the nation of its shock absorbers, leaving British consumers completely naked to the volatility of the global spot market. Having abandoned baseload security, the establishment then perfected the art of the "constraint payment"—a Kafkaesque mechanism where the British taxpayer hands over hundreds of millions of pounds a year to foreign-owned wind farms simply to turn their turbines off when the grid cannot handle the output. We are quite literally paying monopolies a premium to not produce energy.
If the public thought the collapse of the Tory government would end the racket, Andy Burnham and Ed Miliband have swiftly corrected them. Labour’s central manifesto commitment—the supposedly patriotic "GB Energy"—has already been exposed as a bureaucratic mirage. Miliband is not building a sovereign baseload provider to drive down your bills; he is using taxpayer capital to de-risk the investment portfolios of foreign monopolies. We are subsidising the Danish and French states to build intermittent infrastructure on British shores, while Whitehall zealots legally block domestic exploration. Starmer’s administration has bent the knee entirely to the net-zero lobby, prioritizing a radical decarbonisation target that grid operators privately admit is a physical impossibility.
The ultimate insult lies in how the state regulates this misery. Ofgem was theoretically designed to protect the consumer, yet it operates as a taxpayer-funded debt collector for the cartel. Even if a British family turns off their heating and sits in the freezing dark, they are bludgeoned by exorbitant daily standing charges—a regulatory mechanism specifically engineered to guarantee corporate profit margins regardless of public consumption. The state has manufactured a closed-loop system where the supplier cannot lose, the civil service avoids accountability, and the citizen cannot win.
You cannot run an advanced G7 economy by outsourcing your industrial spine to your geopolitical rivals. The British working class has been ordered to swallow this ruinous green ideology for long enough, shivering in their own homes while the political establishment praises its own moral virtue. True energy security requires the courage to drill, to build, and to burn what is beneath our feet. Until we break the Whitehall consensus, you are not paying an energy bill; you are paying a managed decline tax to a parliament that hates the very industry required to keep the lights on.
Den Leonard retweeted
Recently I told you there are two kinds of people in this system: cynics and believers.
Ursula von der Leyen, I put her with the believers. And that's exactly why you need to understand how the machine works.
Because cynics are very rare. Soros, I put him in that category: he knows exactly what he's doing, and he has never hidden it.
He read Popper, he has a theory of change, and he understood early on something the right still hasn't figured out: you don't change a society by winning an election. You change it by funding, for thirty years, the people who will write the reports, train the lawyers, and advise whoever wins the elections.
$24 billion spent by Open Society since its creation. More than 50,000 grants. In 2015, he wrote in plain text that the EU must accept at least a million asylum seekers a year, and mobilize NGOs, churches and businesses to take them in.
All of it is public. That's the most impressive part.
Here's how the system got hacked, in three steps.
Step one: selection.
Nobody recruits idiots. No need. The money does the selecting on its own.
A grant never goes to the person who doubts. It goes to the person who already believes. Repeat that over thirty years and tens of thousands of grants, and you get an entire ecosystem where the free thinker was filtered out at the door. He wasn't fired. He just never got funded.
What's left: people who are sincere, credentialed, conformist, and whose paycheck depends on the cause.
Step two: funding manufactures conviction.
Try explaining something to someone whose paycheck depends on not getting it.
The NGO produces a report. The report gets cited by an expert. The expert testifies before the Commission. The Commission turns it into a directive. And the NGO guy ends up in a cabinet, then goes back to a foundation.
Everyone knows each other, cites each other, funds each other. It's an echo chamber with a budget.
Step three: emotion.
You never debate results. You debate intentions.
One photo beats a thousand statistics. Every objection backed by numbers becomes a moral failing. And when reality contradicts the narrative, the dissonance always gets resolved the same way:
"It's a necessary evil."
"It's collateral damage."
"The real problem is elsewhere."
Immigration is never a problem. The problem is your perception.
The result: the system doesn't produce corrupt people. It produces NPCs. People reciting a script while convinced they wrote it themselves.
Ursula doesn't need to be bought. She has spent her entire career in an environment where every expert, every report, every "civil society" group tells her the same thing. She is convinced she's on the side of good. And that's what makes her immune to facts.
And the best part of the story: Soros isn't even the system's biggest funder anymore.
You are.
Between 2021 and 2023, €7.4 billion in EU funds went to more than 12,000 NGOs. The European Court of Auditors itself says it can't get a reliable picture of who gets what.
The hack worked so well that the machine now runs on your taxes.
This is not a conspiracy. A conspiracy hides. Here, the amounts are public, the op-eds are public, the recipients are public.
It's an incentive system. And you don't fight an incentive system by insulting the believers. You fight it by cutting off the tap and demanding total transparency: who funds whom, to say what.
As long as it stays opaque, they'll keep shipping believers at scale.
Den Leonard retweeted
For the many UK politicians @UKLabour and journalists @BBC who don't know anything about UK trade, here are the highlights:
1. The UK is now predominantly a service exporter. 57% of UK exports are services, which are not affected by EU 'red tape'.
2. UK goods exports have dropped from almost 70% of our total exports in 1997 to just 43% in 2025. This trend began long before Brexit and is tied to Net Zero mandates, high UK energy prices, and EV mandates.
3. Machinery and transport goods, such as cars and aircraft parts, are 42% of all UK goods exports. This is by far the UK's largest export sector, although it is also falling. It was 50% of UK exports in 2000. But if the UK joins the EU's CBAM, companies in this sector will see their imported material costs rise, making their exports even less competitive.
4. Chemicals are the UK's second-largest export sector. They account for 19% of UK goods exports, but this share is shrinking due to UK and EU energy costs and Net Zero regulations. These will increase if the UK joins the EU ETS.
5. Miscellaneous Manufactures account for 11% of UK goods exports. This is still the UK's third-largest export sector, even though it includes many goods the UK no longer makes because of our high Carbon taxes, which will increase if the UK signs up to the EU's even higher ETS on November 20th.
6. Fuels account for 9% of UK exports. This is still the UK's 4th largest goods export sector, even though the current and previous governments are/were trying to destroy it with bans on new exploration and ultra-high taxes.
7. Material Manufactures account for 8% of UK goods exports. This sector includes iron, steel, aluminium, ceramics, and glass manufacturing - industries that have gone, or are going, out of business in the UK because of high UK energy costs, which will rise if the UK joins the EU ETS.
8. These five sectors make up almost 90% of UK exports. The other 5 industry sectors are insignificant. But the government and our journalists think the UK is New Zealand and that the only goods we export are food and live animals to the EU. We don't! UK food and live animal exports to the EU were just 1.3% of the UK's total exports.
9. The government is about to sacrifice all of the export industries listed above to slightly reduce the IMPORT costs of a handful of Supermarkets, at least two of which are privately owned German companies.
These savings will not be passed on to UK shoppers because the government has also increased wages again, and supermarket energy costs will increase if we join the EU's ETS.
10. UK exports of food and live animals will not increase because we are paying farmers to not produce them, this has nothing to do with EU red tape. Instead we are paying farmers to plant trees and wildflowers or plaster their farmland with solar panels. (54% of UK electricity is coming from gas today, 12% from solar and 3% from wind.)
11. Write to your MP and tell him to #StoptheReset.
If you don't stop this, don't complain when all of our goods export industries have closed because of EU higher carbon taxes, EU higher carbon import tariffs, and the cost of complying with the EU's new packaging and process regulations.
