Depose Parliament, enforce the Act of Uniformity
Holy Jerusalem
Joined February 2026
- Tweets2.9K
- Following73
- Followers117
- Likes786
Pinned Tweet
A restoration of Britains Christian heritage cannot be done without efforts to restore our national church.
Since 'archbishop' Sarah Mullally is 63, and the mandatory retirement age is 70, that will place the appointment of the next Archbishop under the following government (God willing). As such, a future patriotic government must ensure that the figure chosen by the Crown Nominations Commission will fulfil his role to protect the Church.
The government must ensure that the Church is unable to waste funds provided for the care of local parishes to be spent on any other matters, especially not for 'reparations'.
They must also support the reform efforts within the CofE (such as the Alliance, and the CEEC), to look towards a future restoration of the English Church where the laity are not left unsure of the validity of the sacraments. Where full assurance can be found at the communion table once again
Kirk retweeted
“Eternal God, and our most mightly protector, we thy unworthy servants do humbly present ourselves before thy Majesty, acknowledging thy power, wisdom, and goodness in preserving the King, and of the Three Estates of this Realm assembled in Parliament, from the destruction this day intended against them. Make us, we beseech thee, truly thankful for this thy great mercy towards us. Protect and defend our Sovereign Lord the King, and all the Royal Family from all treasons and conspiracies: Preserve them in thy faith, fear and love; prosper his Reign with long happiness here on earth; and crown him with everlasting glory hereafter in the kingdom of heaven; through Jesus Christ our only Saviour and Redeemer. Amen.”
Kirk retweeted
The view of the Orientals isn't monolythic, nor is it mandated practice which Nicaea II makes it. The West have never fully affirmed Nicaea II, you will not see people lining up in a Papal church to kiss an icon, we do not have Iconostasis. So too, many medievals affirmed the view of St Gregory that images are not for veneration but for teacing the unlettered (this was shared by Emperor Leo V), a good example is Bernard of Clairvaux who mirrors Gregory in opposing veneration of images. This was also embraced by the response of the majority of the West at the Council of Frankfurt under Emperor Charlemagne who condemned Nicaea II as idolatry, and affirmed St Gregory's position. I should note that not only was this affirmed at their council, but his sons reaffirmed his view (and possibly a stronger aniconist view) at the Synod of Paris (825), this continued in southern France into as late as the thirteenth century.
When you take a careful look at history it isn't as simple as your apologists argue, it benefits them to flatten out history and remove relevent details. Truly it was the high Church Protestants who revived care for Fathers, Patrology as a subject is Protestant in form, to care for history, to care for true tradition (not mere superstition from robber councils) is to be a Classical Protestant.
The only thing shocking here is the idea that @DrChrisParry was indefensible. Farage was correct to state that an apology for any offence taken was the right approach, but his comments were not anything radical
Warning: Distressing and graphic language
An undercover investigation inside Reform UK’s political operation has found senior party officials saying they have to “defend the indefensible” when dealing with accusations of racism against party figures, with Nigel Farage told he was “protecting” one Reform candidate from being sacked for allegedly racist views.
ITV Exposure gained unprecedented access to Reform’s Westminster headquarters, sending in an undercover reporter inside the party in January 2026, where she worked as a press officer. She secretly recorded conversations between Reform officials as they dealt with multiple accusations of racism by Reform councillors and candidates.
Reform UK told us: “Not all individuals covertly recorded by ITV are members of Reform UK. Where members, activists and councillors have clearly behaved inappropriately, investigations have commenced. In some cases, there have been suspensions and due process must be followed.
“Reform UK has improved and prioritised its vetting procedures, but from time to time, a handful of individuals who do not share our values will initially make it through vetting. This is the same for all organisations.
“There is no room for racism in Reform UK. We always respect due process of investigations and whilst these are ongoing it would not be appropriate to comment on individual cases.”
Watch ‘Undercover: A Year in Reform’ on ITV1 & ITVX from 10:20pm on Sunday
This lacks reasonable nuance. As an Anglican, your claim cannot be that Papism defines the whole of the medieval era, they were Western Catholics, but Papist for the most part in their understanding of the Roman See. When Henry VIII returned to an earlier view of the relationship between local churches and Rome, he ceased to be a Papist, but continued being a Western Catholic. By using the accurate language of "Romanist" and "Papist" we can more accurately distinguish between Catholicism, and Romish innovation
OK, RCs, try this hypohetical. Imagine that Mussolini, in 1937, takes over the Vatican by force, and compels the then Pope to publicly repudiate 'Mit Brennender Sorge'. Many RCs across Europe and the USA refuse to accept papal authority thereafter, while remaining faithful in all other ways. Are they still RCs?
Kirk retweeted
If you follow the history of our elections, you need to realise that this leaves you with nothing.
In April 2006, the BNP polled at 6% in a YouGov Poll. Just a week prior 18% of the British public noted that they would consider voting for the BNP (25% in London). When their policy to stop all immigration was proposed to the public in a following YouGov Poll 59% supported it, and only dropped to 48% when attached to the BNP name. In 2009 in the European elections they achieved 6% and won some seats.
Think also about UKIP, reaching a high of 27.5% in the European election in 2014, and 12.6% in the following general election (2015). This only bought them a single seat.
While you're jumping with glee at getting over 10% in a few seats, it will give you nothing. Under FPTP second place doesn't achieve anything.
The answer to this is that John was shifting the date of the crucifixion to highlight a theological truth. Jesus is the Passover lamb, this is highlighted upon his death, the soldiers did not break His legs which fulfilled the scripture “not a bone of His will be broken” (John 19:36). While typically connected to the psalm about Gods protection of his servant, the Greek is almost identical to LXX Exodus 12:10,34, with a change in tense. Exodus 12 being important since it’s where Moses lays out how the Passover lamb is to be dealt with.
In sum, the difference between the Gospels isn’t a historical dispute, it’s a genre difference. The Synoptics are Greco-Roman biographies, intending to form a portrait of the individual through the narrative, where Johns chief focus isn’t the man Jesus, it is the identity of the divine Christ - hence John being the only Gospel to openly and explicitly being with a divine origin (Mark does something similar but less obvious)
Kirk retweeted
Kings granted annulments from Rome:
Louis VII of France 1152
King John of England 1200
Charles IV of France 1322
Louis XII of France 1498 (just 30 years before Henry VIII asked for one).
What about King Henry VIII? Why was he denied the annulment?
Henry was married to Catherine of Aragon whose nephew was Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain- so Rome refused to grant the annulment out of political pressure.
This isn’t some conspiracy theory- Charles V said in diplomatic correspondence that he would “do everything in his power to on behalf of the Queen my aunt.”
After Charles V pressured Rome he was able to have Rome revoke the English tribunals authority to try the case for King Henry VII, and eventually got the case moved to Rome.
This would be another case in an extremely long history of political interference by the Vatican and the last straw for the Crown.
Kirk retweeted
"I don't think evil, in the strict sense, can create. It can spoil something that Another has created." - Lewis
Kirk retweeted
“At the Reformation, the Church of England became protestant in order to become more truly and perfectly Catholic.” —William van Mildert (Bishop of Durham, 1826–36)
“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.” (George Orwell, Politics and the English Language)
Angela Rayner says that 'fascist oligarchs' are seeking to 'divide our country' as she defends plans to cap donations from British nationals who are living overseas
'We could not be more different from a couple of off-shore billionaires trying to buy our democracy.
'And I tell Nigel Farage – you can’t pay your way out of accountability to the people of this country.
'We will defend our democracy and society from any foreign dictator or fascist oligarch who seeks to divide our country and buy our politics.
'But we will never undermine the rights of working people to organise collectively and democratically'
The only peaceful solution
Dear Brits,
You got offended by my comment about the Falkland Islands—a bunch of rocks 8,000 miles from your shores? Good. Now imagine how we Israelis feel about your government’s recognition of “Palestine” over our ancestral heartland of Judea and Samaria, its denial of our sovereignty over our capital, Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, and its constant meddling in our internal affairs and bashing of our country.
These lands are in the heart of our country, which is already roughly the size of Wales—not lands 8,000 miles from our shores.
Your government criticizes our country’s response to October 7 in Gaza, while it is clear that if your country had been invaded by a terrorist group that killed, raped, tortured, and kidnapped thousands of Brits, while firing thousands of rockets at your cities—as we experienced on October 7—your response would have been much harsher.
Britain flattened Germany during World War II, killing millions of German civilians. The casualties caused by British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq were also much higher than those in Gaza, despite the fact that neither of those countries had attacked Britain or posed a direct threat to Britain.
Since the biggest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust on October 7, we have experienced nothing but hostility, antisemitism, and blood libels from your government.
An alliance goes both ways.
Kirk retweeted
The CofE should care little about Palestine, care little about climate change. The chapel to the nation represents those who are on all sides of these issues. The church should bother itself solely with doctrine, preservation of our national identity, and most chiefly, with the delivering of the blessed sacraments
Charles’ comments are clearly wrong on this, but it doesn’t make him a Muslim. It makes him a pluralist at most. The same with the CofE, some bishops allow Muslims to meet in their churches and cathedrals, it is a grave error. Yet isn’t due to religious reasons but rather liberal political views about minorities and inclusion (granted this influences their religious positions)
You cannot retrospectively judge people for rightfully criticising a clear case of plagiarism due to later actions, just as you cannot blame the University ruining his life by hiring an unqualified man and lifting him into the public eye. The result is tragic, life is sacred, but to turn the judgement towards those who criticised his clear academic misconduct is unfair and unjust
Kirk retweeted
Towler is correct in making a historical appeal. Though the British have been sceptical of the Jews from when they moved here (something Lowe was wrong about). We are more accommodating to them since in public they often appear British, they have (to some degree) integrated. Even on the practice itself, we’ve had Kosher meat prepared in England going back to their settlement under Cromwell, and when disputed in the 1800s we affirmed that it was acceptable for them.
The big difference with Halal is that not only is it foreign to us, not only have we never allowed it (until the 1950s), but it’s being forced upon us. Local takeaways, large chain fast food companies, and even supermarkets like Tesco are selling Halal to the general population often noted, but many times not. This even breaches the legal agreements for Halal, that it is acceptable for Muslims, it isn’t acceptable in general.
As stated prior, Kosher is 0.5% of our meat production for the 0.5% Jewish population. Halal is 20% of our meat production for 6% of the population.
It’s reasonable to ban one while making accommodations for the other solely on historical grounds