Between A Rock & A Hard Place
Joined September 2010
- Tweets14.4K
- Following1.4K
- Followers24
- Likes78.1K
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
38 year old man, dressed as dog tells JK Rowling, to “fuck off”, after a long abusive diatribe. See 2nd post in thread.
JK Rowling responds with “wear contacts”.
Dog Man is apparently outraged.
Willett shrieks “outright homophobia!”
All they have is deception, histrionic hysteria & the deepest desire to play the eternal victim…🙄
‘Twas ever thus…🥱
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
As "Islamophobia Awareness Month" begins:
It is an ideal time to remember the countless victims of Islamic terrorism. As well as the millions who suffer today under repressive Islamist regimes. And do not forget the Christians being persecuted wherever a Muslim majority rules.
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
A lot of us were very willing to have a debate without heat, @stonewalluk, and the reason that never happened wasn't because gender critical feminists didn't want one.
While we were trying to get you to listen to our concerns, your former CEO was telling a BBC boss that gay people not wanting to include the opposite sex in their dating pool was 'sexual racism'. While we were pointing out the homophobia inherent in gender ideology, Stonewall ambassador Alex Drummond (a bearded, heterosexual man who'd had no surgery and taken no cross-sex hormones but liked wearing skirts), was going into schools to talk to students about his 'lesbian' identity. @BluskyeAllison, who actually is a lesbian, was subject to unlawful discrimination at her place of work for tweeting: ‘Stonewall recently hired Morgan Page, a male bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called [it] “overcoming the cotton ceiling”.’
When the UK Supreme Court upheld women's right to single sex spaces, you issued a statement expressing your unhappiness about the ruling. In her report on your unhappy influence at the University of Essex, you were found by barrister @akuareindorf to have misrepresented the law as it related to women's rights: '[Stonewall have] stated the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is’.
In 2018, you publicly advised schools to shred a research pack saying there were risks to puberty blockers, in spite of the fact that you aren't a medical charity and that there was already credible evidence that puberty blockers are neither irreversible nor harm-free. Meanwhile you produced your own educational packs, recommending a children's book, for ages 5-9, in which the parent 'is neither a man, nor a woman – they’re non-binary.' In July 2022, Stonewall sent out a tweet that read ‘Research suggests that children as young as two recognise their trans identity'.
@thetimes has reported how you've sought to control the language used by NHS trusts and government on their social-media accounts. Organisations would get points from you for replacing commonly understood words with ideologically approved terms, eg, 'birthing parent' instead of 'mother'. thetimes.com/uk/society/arti…
In short, you took a maximalist position on gender identity ideology, which you attempted to enforce by diktat. You refused to acknowledge that you'd hitched your wagon to a cause that, unlike civil rights, gay rights or women's rights, sought to strip rights from others. You sought to curtail everyone's right to freedom of speech and belief by controlling what it was permissible to think and say, through the management and political class. You have argued against women's and girl's rights to their own spaces, their sports and to assemble without men. Your former CEO tried to shame gay women/men into dating the opposite sex if the latter claimed to be female/male.
Your mantra was 'no debate' because, like all totalitarians, you preferred slogans, bullying and infiltration of powerful institutions to talking to opponents. You appear to have had no concern for the lowly people your ideology was harming: gender confused kids, female rape victims, female prisoners, regular people hounded and investigated at their places of work for refusing to accept the new mandates on sex and gender issued from on high.
Your 'activism' has been a disaster for those trans-identified people who really do just want to get on with their lives in peace. You have besmirched the name of an organisation many of us were once proud to donate to, the charity that was partly responsible for securing the legal right of gay people to marry, which a lot of us thought would never happen in our lifetimes. The milquetoast words quoted below do not erase a decade of gender activism that has been disastrous not only for individuals but for society as a whole.
There was once a debate to be had, but until you acknowledge the direct harm you've caused, it is no more possible to debate you than to persuade a person in the throes of a drug-induced psychosis that they are not, in fact, the reincarnated Christ.
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
Miller v Chief Constable @LincsPolice & @ukhomeoffice Nov 2026. High Court. Leeds
I have a criminal record. For stalking. With hate markers. The victim is a former police officer, dismissed for Gross Misconduct.
To clarify. This is an actual criminal record. I have a criminal record. And I was given it without being interviewed, informed, questioned, or charged; the CPS were not involved, and there was no magistrate, judge or jury. The Chief Constable just gave it to me because it is in his gift to do so. Because the Home Secretary says he can.
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
Britain's Man In Jerusalem Has A Problem At Home
Jonathan Powell has spent this month trying to keep Britain's consulate in Jerusalem open. Israel closed it in retaliation after Ed Miliband banned imports from illegal West Bank settlements, and relations between the two countries now sit at their lowest point in decades. Powell, as national security adviser, has become Britain's chief interlocutor in trying to repair that relationship. His wife, meanwhile, has spent this week being investigated by the Metropolitan Police.
Sarah Helm wrote on X that she stood with "authors who support Palestine and Palestine Action," a group proscribed as a terrorist organisation since 2025, after protesters allegedly caused £7 million of damage at RAF Brize Norton. More than 3,000 people have been arrested for expressing support for it. Her post has prompted a formal assessment by Scotland Yard.
Helm's views on Israel did not begin this week. She has called Gaza a "strange surreal prison" where Palestinians were "imprisoned without charge." She has asked why occupied Palestinians lack the right to resist their occupier when Ukrainians are celebrated for resisting Russia. In 2024 she called for an international force to "drive out Israel's genocidal army" from Gaza. None of this is new information. All of it predates her husband's appointment as the man now representing Britain's interests in Jerusalem.
That timeline matters more than her tweet does. Nobody needs to question Helm's right to hold these views, deeply held and publicly stated over years, to ask a separate question: whether anyone in government considered what it meant to place her husband at the centre of Britain's most delicate Israel negotiations in a generation, with his own household this openly aligned against Israel's position on the war. Diplomacy runs on perceived neutrality as much as substance. Israel does not need evidence that Helm's views shaped British policy to conclude that the man negotiating with them sits considerably closer to the other side of the argument than comfort allows.
This is the same gap that has defined Powell's tenure from the start. He ran a secret backchannel to a proscribed terrorist group in Syria before his appointment, undisclosed until journalists found it. He held meetings with PLA-linked Chinese officials through his private charity, undisclosed until Parliament tried and failed to ask about them. His developed vetting status has never been confirmed, despite his predecessor's failed vetting triggering the defining scandal of this government. Each time, the pattern is identical. Something relevant to his judgement or his position existed, and nobody weighed it before he was trusted with the brief it touched.
Campaign Against Antisemitism has called on Powell to denounce his wife's rhetoric publicly if he wishes to continue in post. That may be the wrong remedy for the wrong problem. Helm is entitled to her opinions regardless of who she married, and demanding a public renunciation from a spouse sets an uncomfortable precedent. The real failure sits with Downing Street, which appears to have handed its most sensitive Israel brief to a man whose household's views on the conflict were already a matter of public record, without pausing to ask whether that was wise.
Powell remains in post. The consulate talks continue. Nobody in government has explained why a national security adviser whose wife has spent years comparing Israel's war conduct to an illegal occupation was considered the right person to represent Britain's interests in Jerusalem at the most sensitive moment in that relationship for a generation. The real question here has nothing to do with Sarah Helm. It is whether anyone in Downing Street does due diligence at all.
"Campaign Against Antisemitism has called on Powell to denounce his wife's rhetoric publicly if he wishes to continue in post."
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
Loudly for those having tantrums about the NHS *finally* obeying the law, some 16 years on, and providing women with necessary, separate, single sex spaces. This is partly why. I dare you to tell us you don't agree it should.
I first raised this report by @JoPhoenix1 for @WomensRightsNet in spring 2023 at PMQs. Since then we've had 5 Health Secretaries, a Supreme Court clarification of The Equality Act 2010, and simple EHRC guidance.
The NHS delay should shame every senior MP who failed to ensure UK law was acted on. womensrights.network/nhs-dat…
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
If you read one thing this evening, let it be this speech from Maurice Cohen, President of the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland about the Herbert Park Hotel. He poignantly describes how this hotel - once associated with friendship, celebration and his mother - has now, rather tragically, acquired a very different place in his memory.
‘…contemporary antisemitism does not always arrive wearing the language of the past. It does not always announce itself with a slur, a threat or a placard. Increasingly, it can present itself as a question, a precaution, a policy, a request for clarification. It begins by treating Jewish identity as evidence of political allegiance. It turns Jewish people into representatives of a foreign state, Jewish gatherings into security concerns, and ordinary acts of welcome into decisions requiring special permission. That is the danger of antisemitism today: not only that it excludes Jews, but that it makes their exclusion appear reasonable.’
‘Seventy rooms had been booked. Seventy people had been welcomed as guests. The only thing that changed was what they were understood to be. That is not a minor administrative inconvenience. It is a warning. Antisemitism survives by changing its vocabulary while preserving its logic: Jews are treated as different, suspect and collectively responsible. The words may be new, but the message is old. You may enter as an individual, but once you are recognised as Jewish, the terms of welcome can change. And that is why we still have a long way to go in Ireland, the land of 100,000 thousand welcomes: because the test of a society is not whether it welcomes people before it knows who they are. The test is whether it continues to welcome them after it does. Yes, a long way to go in Ireland and The Herbert Park Hotel.’
Shame on Herbert Park Hotel. And shame on Ireland for enabling and cultivating this culture of antisemitic exclusion.
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
Apparently, I’m an “individual of childbearing potential (12–55)”.
I think you’ll find the word is WOMAN.
And in its bid to be “inclusive”, this NHS Trust appears to have overlooked the fact that some girls start their periods before the age of 12, and some women continue after 55. While pregnancy at those ages is rare, the age range isn’t an absolute boundary.
So WOMEN AND GIRLS might be clearer still.
In healthcare communications, clarity should always take priority over ideology.
Familiar words like "women" or "girls" are easier to understand than “individuals of childbearing potential”, particularly if English is your second language.
And before anyone tries the “what about pregnant children?” argument - yes, people really use that to justify removing women's sex-based language 🙄 - it is widely understand that, while less common, a young woman i.e. a "girl" could also be pregnant.
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
Today, an Israeli child was killed and several injured when an unexploded Hezbollah cluster munition detonated during a school trip.
Had Palestinian children been killed by Israeli ordnance in Gaza, imagine the @bbcnews coverage.
But this tragedy? Not even a mention.
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
A reminder that, in 2020, Rupert McNeil was one of the most senior people in the Cabinet Office, and wrote this article about the importance of pronouns in emails and social media bios.
He then got a job in the Middle East - and deleted all his pronouns.
linkedin.com/pulse/why-do-i-…
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
I didn’t really get the problem with gender ideology at first.
I’m liberal-minded about most things. ‘Live and let live’ has generally been my motto. I believed in inclusion, kindness and not causing unnecessary offence.
I knew some adults chose medical treatments or surgery to resemble the opposite sex. That seemed to me a matter of personal autonomy. Adults can do what they wish with their own bodies.
What I hadn’t realised — and I feel slightly embarrassed admitting this — was that I’d misunderstood what was being claimed.
I thought “transgender” meant a form of self-expression. A man who liked wearing women’s clothes. Someone changing their name. Gender non-conformity.
What I hadn’t grasped was that some activists weren’t just asking for tolerance. They were asserting that declaring yourself the opposite sex made you the opposite sex. Not metaphorically. Literally.
And that this wasn’t just cultural. It had legal consequences.
It meant men who said they were women were demanding access to women’s sports, prisons, domestic violence shelters and hospital wards.
It meant the rewriting of healthcare language — “pregnant people”, “bodies with cervixes” — to avoid saying “women”.
It meant children struggling with identity being affirmed onto medical pathways with lifelong implications.
And also redefining same-sex attraction. Lesbians called ‘bigoted’ for not wanting relationships with men who identify as women. Gay men accused of prejudice for saying they’re not attracted to female bodies.
I’d also overlooked how deeply this had spread into public institutions, schools and workplaces.
And how easily disagreement was framed as cruelty. Speaking up felt risky — because others were being publicly humiliated for doing so.
None of this is abstract.
Because sex is the basis on which safeguarding works. On which data is collected. On which cancer screening programmes run. On which fair sport and single-sex spaces depend. It’s written into law — including the Equality Act — because material differences matter.
If sex becomes a ‘feeling’ rather than a biological category, those protections become unstable.
And once reality becomes negotiable, everything does.
Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it.
But I needed to be sure.
So I read. Books, research papers, policy documents. When I finally spoke publicly, there was backlash from all directions.
Many women thanked me, while some feminists criticised me for speaking too late.
Others were angry about a past interview I’d done with the parent of a transgender person, accusing me of promoting harm.
It takes courage to speak when you know your reputation, friendships or livelihood may be on the line — when you know raising your voice could strain, or even end, relationships you value.
Once I understood what was at stake, staying silent was no longer an option.
I lost my livelihood simply for saying I didn’t like the phrase “pregnant people”. That alone tells you something is deeply wrong.
It shouldn’t be this way.
I don’t expect praise for admitting it took me far too long to understand what was happening. Or to say so publicly.
I can only be honest about what I believed then and what I understand now.
But it does take courage to admit publicly that you got something wrong. All I hope is that by acknowledging I wasn’t paying enough attention, another woman (or man) might feel emboldened to do the same.
Because, as many of us know first-hand, there can be professional, social and financial consequences to speaking out.
And I won’t pretend I understood something before I did, simply to make myself more acceptable to those who got there sooner.
Which is why I will never judge another woman for how long it takes her to find her voice.
Because every voice matters. Whenever it is raised.
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
This is @thecarolemalone being magnificent!!! Mic drop!
A heated exchange on Channel 5’s Jeremy Vine show saw broadcaster Carole Malone challenge Green Party politician Zack Polanski over J.K. Rowling and the defense of single-sex spaces.
When Polanski accused Rowling of "punching down" against trans-identifying individuals, Malone delivered a direct pushback, emphasizing that Rowling faces relentless backlash simply for defending female-only rights and sex-based spaces.
As Polanski attempted to dictate what issues should matter to women, Malone called out the contradiction of a man attempting to define women's rights while dismissing the ongoing erosion of biological sex-based protections.
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
After the Green Party's "Zionism is Racism" vote, the Leader of Haringey Council, which is controlled by the Greens, wrote to various Synagogues in the borough to "reassure" them.
I want to show you Highgate Synagogue's reply. I believe it is worth reading in its entirety.
Synagogue rejects Green council leader’s attempt to ‘reassure’ them after “Zionism is Racism” vote
jewishnews.co.uk/synagogue-r…
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
A 1,465-page Subject Access Request from Royal Holloway shows university staff discussing my social media, my political views, and even my “thoughts” with Surrey Police and PREVENT.
The referral called my pro-Israel and Zionist views an exercise of “freedom of speech,” then said my “latest comments” suggested “more extreme right-wing views” and might be “suspected hate speech.” It logged tweets that mentioned Muslims. It recorded my location in Golders Green on the evening two Jewish men were stabbed in an incident police treated as terrorism - the night I stood with the Jewish community there.
One internal message asked: “Waiting for BM to link this to his experience?”
That is the live matter under CPS review over the tea-towel comment. Staff appear to have been trying to tie ordinary political posts to an ongoing criminal case.
A university department monitoring a student’s speech and location, then feeding it toward police and Prevent, while a case is live, is not safeguarding. It looks like interference.
The same records show the university telling police not to contact me directly - that the university needed to know before police acted.
Prevent closed the case. No evidence I was developing an extremist mindset. No evidence I was promoting an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance. No evidence I was being drawn into terrorism. Referral shut.
Students should be referred to Prevent or police when there is a genuine concern about extremism, incitement, or support for terror groups - not because their politics are unpopular, not because someone wants their tweets linked to a separate case, and not because staff are logging “thoughts.”
Since I started at this university I have had more than 16 threats. Eleven of them came two weeks ago: a knife-across-the-throat sticker, messages saying people will find me and know where I am, threats aimed at the university, and lines about keeping my neck warm and wearing a scarf because I would be assassinated like Charlie Kirk.
Some quoted the Quran alongside the threats. I have the screenshots.
The wellbeing team that should have been dealing with that is the same operation whose records show them routing my politics toward counter-terror channels. Prevent said no. The threats kept coming.
When does a university’s monitoring of political speech become a counter-terrorism matter? Who decides a student’s views warrant a referral? What stops staff from treating dissent as evidence of extremism — and from trying to fold it into a live police case?
Universities are spending time and public resources policing tweets and “thoughts” while actual threats go unanswered. Prevent had to shut this one down.
Britain is broken.
#FreeSpeech #HigherEducation #Prevent #RoyalHolloway
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
It has emerged that Zack Polanski (who changed his name from David Paulden) claimed his ancestors fled the Nazis even though all of his grandparents were born in Britain long before the war.
All of this is to give him a strategic angle to tear into Israel.
He is a fraud.
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
The explanation is basic economic global migration patterns, and post-war history, not an anti-Scottish conspiracy from Whitehall.
First, claiming “no other country has such a low population increase” is completely false. Across Europe, post-industrial nations and regions have seen flat or declining populations. Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Romania, and parts of Eastern Germany have all suffered massive population declines or stagnation since the mid-20th century. Even the Republic of Ireland’s population remained virtually stagnant from the 1950s until the late 1990s due to continuous outward migration.
Second, you are comparing Scotland to the whole of England rather than equivalent regional economies. England’s growth wasn't uniform; it was overwhelmingly concentrated in London, the South East, and the Midlands. If you look at the North East of England, which shared Scotland’s heavy industrial profile (shipbuilding, coal, steel), its population was roughly 2.6 million in the 1950s and is barely 2.65 million today. Was Westminster deliberately “mismanaging” Newcastle and Sunderland out of anti-Scottish bias too?
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
This is a masterclass in statistical lying to manufacture a constitutional grievance. You claim the Prime Minister is taking “up to £4bn from Scotland's pensioners to pay for social care in England”, but your own Deputy First Minister’s letter admits that £4bn figure is an unadjusted cash-terms extrapolation for 2049–50, nearly a quarter of a century away. Terrifying pensioners today with compounding spreadsheet projections for 24 years in the future is cynical politics. More importantly, the claim that Scottish money is going south to fund English care is completely fabricated. Social care is fully devolved. If the UK Government invests money into an English National Care Service, the Barnett formula automatically triggers massive, proportional block grant windfalls straight into Holyrood's bank account. Scotland doesn't pay for English care; Holyrood gets a cash payout because of it. The ultimate irony is that Scotland’s population is ageing faster than the rest of the UK. Scottish pensions are currently underwritten by a 68-million-strong UK tax base and an annual £25.3bn UK Treasury fiscal transfer. If Scotland were independent, facing a 10% structural deficit without a central bank, you couldn't maintain existing state pensions on Day 1, let alone in 2050. Honest John?😂
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
Speaking as the elderly mother of three youngsters, who hasn’t had a sex change and knows many homosexuals, it is my able-bodied and sexually-preferred opinion that the Greens are turning into total nutters.
UncertainOfTheTruth retweeted
Turkey's military occupies:
- 9,000 square kilometers in Syria (twice the size of West Bank)
- 3,400 square kilometers in Cyprus
- 2,000 square kilometers in Iraq
Violent land grab, Castro says?
Under Netanyahu’s government, settlers are engaged in a violent land grab that’s ripping Palestinians from their land.
Sanctions can help stop it.
The Stop the Settlements Act gives any person or company looking to take Palestinian land in the West Bank or Gaza a choice: if you pursue settlements, you can’t do business with the United States.
