The Snowflakes were contrasted with he 'Claybanks' (based on the color of the local clay) who wanted a gradual transition out of slavery for slaves, & the 'Charcoals'/'Brown Radicals', who wanted immediate emancipation for black people.
And did you know that #woke became a byword for social awareness in 2008, with Erykah Badu’s song “Master Teacher”?
'Stay woke' became used in parts of the black community for those who were self-aware, who questioned the dominant paradigm, & who strived for something better.
#Woke was popularised in 2014, following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, when it became entwined with #BlackLivesMatter movement; instead of just suggesting awareness of injustice or racial tension, it became a word signalling action.
Free speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions & ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.
The term "freedom of expression" is often used synonymously.
Freedom of expression includes any act of seeking, receiving, & imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
Freedom of expression is recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However...
Article 19 states the exercise of these rights carry "special duties & responsibilities" & may "be subject to certain restrictions" eg "respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals".
Free speech is NOT absolute: limitations relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified info, copyright, trade secrets, food labeling, NDAs, the right to privacy & dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, & perjury.
It's my contention that - contrary to what many on the Right keep misleadingly claiming about both younger people & especially people on the Left - absolutely NOBODY is "anti-free speech".
Free speech has ALWAYS existed on a continuum, & always will.
Challenging the “free speech” of pathological liars, racists, paedophiles, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, homophobes, transphobes, Islamophobes, people who glorify terrorism & those who deliberately spread dangerously misleading disinformation, is always the correct thing to do.
Another constant refrain from those on the Right determined to fuel a divisive 'culture war' concerns "cancel culture" & "no-platforming".
'No platforming' in particular actually has a noble history, & CAN BE an ethical, legitimate, appropriate & very effective tool.
Brave & heroic individuals “no-platformed” Oswald Mosley in the 1930s, the National Front in the 1970s, the BNP in the 1980s & 1990s & Islamic extremists in the noughties.
Allow me to briefly discuss the case of Oswald Mosley, Leader of the British Union of Fascists.
While Mosley's anti-Semitic & racist politics found some success in some pockets of London, they failed spectacularly in trying to establish a foothold among the vast majority of northern working class voters.
In 1937, his followers were growing & he decided to visit parts of the country where he didn't have as much support, with the aim of converting the working classes to a new, fascist ideology.
Of course people tried to 'no platform' him, but the authorities allowed him to tour.
On October 10, Mosley arrived in the Liverpool. His plan was to stand on top of a loud speaker van & tour the city.
He got up on the van, gave the crowd a fascist salute but before he could even speak a single word, stones were thrown from the crowd & hit Mosley in the head.
In the 1930s, Mosley’s fascists were also attacked by workers, anti-fascists, socialists & communists in Devon, Manchester, Newcastle, London and Stockton.
I do not support violence, but imho, there are times when 'no-platforming' IS entirely appropriate.
"Cancel Culture" is not new either: boycotts & call-outs leading to job losses have forced positive social change across the world. Think of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, & few would think neo-Nazi groups being subject to “cancel culture” has been bad for Britain.
Finally, a brief word about 'Identity Politics': the suffragette, the abolitionist, civil & gay rights movements were ALL primarily 'identity politics' - as is challenging the exploitation of the working class by the powerful.
We need nuance, not reductionism & absolutism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A multibillion-dollar scheme that exchanges cash from drug and gun sales in the UK for crypto—digital tokens hiding users’ identities—has enabling “sanctions evasions and the highest levels of organised crime, including providing money-laundering services to the Russian state”. theguardian.com/politics/2025/…
In 2023, the hedge fund co-founded by GB "News" owner Paul Marshall, who employs 60% of anti-Net Zero Reform UK's MPs, had £1.8 BILLION invested in fossil fuel firms.
Harborne (who has Thai citizenship under the name 'Chakrit Sakunkrit) also makes money from fossil fuels.
I and countless others are sick to death of the billionaire-funded Reform UK propaganda machine, GB “News”, and their decontextualised ‘facts’ that would make Goebbels blush.
Let’s examine the claim that “one quarter of foreign sex offenders come from just five countries”.
Yes, the raw data comes from a genuine Ministry of Justice (MoJ) prison census, but the way it’s being weaponised is deeply misleading.
The statistic sounds explosive, and deliberately so: a factoid engineered to sound like a revelation of hidden danger.
The right-wing information pipeline: a cherry-picked fragment of official data stripped of context, laundered through an opaquely funded “think tank” that isn't a think tank, amplified by billionaire-funded media, and weaponised by opportunistic politicians for electoral gain.
In the September 2025 @SkyNews Immigration Debate, chaired by Trevor “Muslims are not like us” Phillips, Reform UK’s head of policy Zia Yusuf made a series of inaccurate and highly misleading claims about migration, and more recently, on @BBCNewsnight, about social housing.
These assertions are easily disproved with publicly available data, but often go largely unchallenged on air, despite being about some of the most sensitive and polarised issues in politics.
Yusuf started by claiming that UK net migration “last year” was “about a million.”
When a newspaper repeatedly publishes misleading, distorted, or outright inaccurate stories, the public expects independent regulators to step in.
What if I told you the editor responsible for these stories is now in charge of writing the very rules that govern press ethics?
Privately educated Chris Evans, editor of The Daily Telegraph since 2014, has—since January 2024—simultaneously served as Chair of the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, the body that drafts, reviews, and rewrites the ethical rulebook that the UK press is meant to follow.
Evans holds this regulatory role at a time when his own paper is producing more factual corrections and clarifications than almost any other major UK outlet — with an overwhelming concentration in politically weaponised right-wing themes.
The BBC isn’t perfect — but it’s ours. As coordinated attacks on its independence intensify, I warn that if we don’t defend it now, we may lose more than a broadcaster — we may lose a cornerstone of British democracy...
As a long-time critic of the @BBC, let me spell it out: what we’re seeing right now isn’t organic outrage — it’s a sophisticated coordinated campaign by ideological enemies and commercial competitors to undermine the BBC’s independence and funding.
If you can’t see that, you’re being played — and that’s exactly the point.
Let’s start with Michael Prescott, author of the dodgy dossier leaked exclusively to The Telegraph, who is a PR man and former political editor at Murdoch’s Sunday Times.
Growing numbers of people are angry and disillusioned with the political establishment.
Desperate voters are easy prey for manipulative populists—as they were in Germany in the 1930s.
But the problem isn't immigrants or religious minorities. It's always wealth distribution.
The story of wealth in Britain over the past eight decades since WWII is not one of ‘the invisible hand’, but of deliberate policy choices—choices that once built one of the most equal society in modern history, but now sustain one of the most unequal in the developed world.
Data tracking wealth distribution from 1945 to 2025 reveal a striking U-shaped curve: a rapid reduction in wealth inequality after World War II, making Britain one of the most equal countries on earth by the mid 1970s, followed by an unbroken rise.