This week on Bearly Politics.

A quick roundup of what’s happened this week - from cats running psychological warfare campaigns, to Reform UK’s empty pyrotechnics, to why the word racist still sends parts of Britain into meltdown.

🧵 How “Racist” Became the Dirtiest Word in Britain

Call someone a racist and suddenly you’re the problem. A look at how the word has been twisted, softened, weaponised - and why naming racism for what it is still matters.

bearlypolitics.co.uk/p/how-racist-b…

Please note.

Abortion has not been “legalised” up to birth in the UK - it’s been decriminalised.

This is an important distinction, especially when so many are deliberately blurring the lines for outrage clicks.

Here’s what actually happened:

What MPs voted for today was to remove criminal penalties for women who end their own pregnancies outside of the existing legal framework - usually in crisis, often alone.

This follows harrowing cases like Carla Foster and others who faced prosecution under a 160-year-old law. In some cases, women were criminalised after experiencing miscarriage or stillbirth.

That’s what’s changed.

❌ It does not mean abortion is now available “up to birth” on demand.

🛑 Medical professionals are still bound by the Abortion Act 1967, which sets the gestational limit at 24 weeks (with very limited exceptions beyond that, e.g. grave risk to life or severe fetal abnormality).
🛑 Women cannot access late-stage abortion legally without meeting those exceptions.
🛑 Doctors can still be prosecuted if they act outside those laws.

In other words, abortion remains regulated – but women are no longer treated as criminals for making desperate decisions about their own bodies.

This change was backed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the BMA, BPAS, and nearly every major health body involved in reproductive care. It brings us closer in line with public health best practice and human rights.

Decriminalisation means treating abortion as a healthcare matter, not a criminal one.

That’s it.

That’s the story.

So if someone tells you that MPs just legalised abortion “up to birth,” they’re either misinformed or misleading you.

Either way, it’s not true. Doctors do still matter.

The amendment decriminalises women - not clinical procedures.

Providers and unlicensed suppliers remain regulated and prosecutable. The aim is to stop jailing vulnerable women in crisis, not to erase safe care.

https://twitter.com/godfreydeb6743/status/1935080948170645760

So, you may have noticed that I’ve been online a fair bit the last few days - and you’d be right. I’ve had five glorious days of annual leave to burn through before they disappeared into the NHS ether. Naturally, I’ve used them productively: tweeting relentlessly and yelling into the void of our flaming planet.

The topic du jour?

Tariffs.

Sexy, I know.

Now, I’ve shared a fair few thoughts on this - because it’s a genuinely fascinating subject. But in the process, I’ve also had a few people have a pop at me, questioning why someone “who isn’t an economist” is talking about economic policy.

And they’re absolutely right.

I’m not an economist.

I don’t have a degree in it.

I don’t work in financial markets.

I don’t sit on trade commissions or advise governments on macroeconomic levers.

But here’s what I do have: a curiosity-led brain and a very structured method I’ve used for years to get my head around complex topics. So today, allow me to take you on a little tour through the twisted, very strange circuitry of my brain using my very own adaptation of the 5WH framework.

A thread 🧵 Step 1: What

Start with the most basic question:

What even is this thing?

For tariffs, this meant understanding the basic definition. A tariff is a tax on imports or exports between sovereign states. It’s not a punishment (though it can be used that way). It’s not a silver bullet. It’s not inherently good or bad. It’s a tool - like a hammer or a toothbrush. And like any tool, it’s all about how you use it.

So I kept asking “What?”
- What are tariffs meant to achieve?
- What industries are impacted most?
- What does it mean for domestic consumers?
- What happens when tariffs are retaliated?

This is where the fun begins, because once you understand what something is, you start to separate the real arguments from the performative shouting.

Here’s your problem, Mark: you don’t know how death certification works in the UK - but you speak like you do.

Attached here is an actual Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (also known as an MCCD) which is completed by a qualified doctor who has assessed the person who has passed away.

As you’ll note, it asks for the disease or condition leading directly to death, as well as any other contributing conditions, in sequence. COVID-19 only appears here if a doctor believes it directly caused or materially contributed to death.

If someone dies in a car crash but happens to test positive for Covid post-mortem? That’s not going in box 1a, b, c or d. It’s likely not being listed at all, unless it played a role - and even then, it’d be listed under part II, which is not counted as the primary cause of death.

So no - people didn’t die “with” Covid and get magically counted as Covid deaths. The death certification process is evidence-based, standardised, and legally binding. Your myth relies on a complete ignorance of how this system works, and it’s a disservice to the professionals who spend their days navigating it with care.

Next time you want to argue about how deaths are counted, at least have the decency to learn how the most basic steps and processes of the procedure works.

gov.uk/government/pub… Tell me if I’m getting this right, Mark?

You leapt into a thread discussing COVID death certification in the UK, offered a vague anecdote about a post-mortem COVID test being wrongly attributed to a car crash, and then - when corrected using UK documentation - got huffy because nobody psychically inferred your story happened in Florida?

Then, in a desperate attempt to recover, you flung your mother’s death certificate into the conversation as if one vague disagreement over medical opinion justifies global conspiracy theories about how death is recorded?

Now, there are a few things wrong here, so bear with me:

1. You didn’t specify Florida. You live in the UK. The conversation was about the UK. Your deflection is transparent.

2. “Frailty of old age” is a medical cause of death, especially when comorbidities or decline make other causes unclear. Morphine given for palliative comfort does not automatically override that unless administered in error or malice - and unless you’re levelling that accusation, sit down.

3. The Florida death certification guidance - which I’ve attached for your convenience - explicitly states that clinicians should record causes based on best medical opinion and clinical judgement, not conspiracies whipped up after the fact by grieving relatives with no medical background.

You’re not a pathologist.

You’re not a coroner.

You’re a bloke on the internet who’s angry that your half-baked anecdote didn’t win the internet, and quite frankly, no amount of personal bluster or amateur forensic armchairing is going to change the fact that you wandered into this thread with bravado and left with your own argument in shreds.

Now jog on.

Your reminder that having a trade deficit does not mean that you are “subsidising” a country, it means that you buy more from that country than it buys from you and indicates spectacular ignorance of how trade works.

No.

That’s not how trade deficits work. A trade deficit simply means one country buys more goods and services from another than it sells in return. It doesn’t mean one side is getting “poorer” while the other “gets richer” - trade is not a zero-sum game.

A country running a trade deficit is still receiving valuable goods and services in exchange for money, which can be reinvested into its economy. The US, for example, runs a persistent trade deficit but remains one of the wealthiest nations on Earth because it has strong domestic consumption, a service-based economy, and foreign investment flowing in.

If trade deficits made countries poorer, the US would have collapsed long ago, and countries with trade surpluses - like Germany or China - would have all the wealth, which isn’t how global economics works.

I’m sorry, what now?!

You do realise that these “hand-wringing” Europeans have spent the last 70 years turning up to fight America’s wars, right?

Let me take you on a little trip down memory lane - one littered with the wreckage of “American diplomacy” - since your grasp of history seems shakier than Orangina’s grip on a ramp.

Korea? Over 60,000 British troops deployed alongside U.S. forces, along with 5,000 Turks, plus French, Dutch, and Greek contingents. Europeans bled and died on the same battlefields as Americans.

The Gulf War? The UK sent 35,000 troops. France deployed 18,000. Italy, the Netherlands, and others contributed. Europeans stood shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

Afghanistan? The NATO mission - led at various points by “hand-wringing” European commanders like General Sir David Richards (🇬🇧), General Egon Ramms (🇩🇪), and General Jean-Louis Py (🇫🇷) - saw thousands of British, Dutch, Danish, Polish, and other European troops deployed year after year. Britain alone sent 150,000 troops. A European-led force fought in a war the U.S. started… and then, of course, abandoned, leaving the Taliban to waltz back in.

Iraq? The UK sent 46,000 troops. Poland commanded a whole multinational division with 2,500 of its own. Italy contributed 3,200, Denmark 500. These weren’t token gestures; these were boots on the ground in a war built on lies your government peddled.

So tell me, Lindsey, at what point did “hand-wringing” Europeans stop pulling their weight?

When exactly did they become too weak to “defend their own continent,” given that they’ve spent the last 70 years showing up every time America blundered into another conflict?

Was it when thousands of British, French, Dutch, and Polish troops fought in Helmand, Kandahar, and Kabul?

Or was it when European soldiers were deployed in Iraq to clean up the mess from an invasion the U.S. justified with fabricated intelligence?

Or maybe it was when European nations actually upheld their NATO commitments while Trump had an adolescent tantrum about them and Republicans fell over themselves to kiss Putin’s ring?

It takes a special kind of ignorance to pretend Europe hasn’t fought alongside the U.S. time and time again. But then again, considering how the Republican Party now prefers surrendering to Russia over standing with its allies, maybe this historical amnesia isn’t so surprising after all. Yup 👇

https://twitter.com/jenc20thgirl/status/1896117957971058752

Here’s your regular reminder that diversity includes:

- Disabled people
- People of Colour
- People from working-class backgrounds
- Women
- LGBTQ+ people
- Religious minorities
- Older students returning to education
- Neurodivergent people
- Care leavers
- First-generation university students

If you don’t care about diversity, then you don’t care about ensuring that universities are accessible to talented people from all walks of life.

You don’t care about removing barriers that have historically kept certain groups out of higher education.

You don’t care about competence - because talent exists everywhere, but opportunity doesn’t.

And that, frankly, tells us absolutely everything we need to know about you. Sally-Anna Misinformation Reporter, you keep talking about competence, character, and commitment as if diversity somehow contradicts them. It doesn’t.

Talent exists everywhere.

Opportunity doesn’t.

That’s the problem.

Do you think a working-class student with straight A’s but no family connections or financial backing is less competent than a wealthy student who coasts in through legacy admissions?

Do you think a disabled student who needs accommodations is less committed than someone who never had to face those barriers?

Diversity doesn’t replace merit - it ensures that merit is actually recognised.

Why is that such a problem for you?

Right.

We’ve all by now seen that Axel Rudakubana has been charged with terrorism offences as of today, while at the same time the police have also confirmed that the murders he allegedly committed will not be treated as an act of terror.

Now, on the best of days, that statement would already be putting the misinformation machines into overdrive, and let’s be honest, we’ve not had the best of days.

So on that basis, please allow me to go through a few FAQs.

🔴 Why is the attack not classified as terrorism?

Because the terrorist charges Rudakubana faces don’t involve the murders themselves, but rather other incriminating items discovered, like ricin (a biological weapon) and an al-Qaeda training manual. While these discoveries raise additional questions, the police have chosen not to classify the murders as terror-related at this point.

So, while his case is indeed complex, there’s no sudden shift in classification - nor is it an excuse for vigilantism.

🔴 Is this a case of two-tier justice?

Hardly. The courts are treating each case individually, as they should. Rudakubana is facing severe consequences for his alleged actions, while the rioters face theirs. The justice system isn’t designed to favour one form of criminality over another based on some imagined hierarchy; it’s built to address each crime as it comes.

🔴 Why do you keep using “allegedly” in this context?

It means that, while charges have been filed, the case has not yet been decided in court, and he remains innocent until proven guilty. This is a fundamental principle of justice and one that applies to every case, no matter how grim the allegations.

🔴 Wouldn’t labelling the murders as terrorism be more accurate?

Not necessarily.

Terrorism charges require specific intent and context beyond violence alone. The presence of toxic substances like ricin and extremist materials warrants separate terror charges, but these don’t automatically transform every aspect of his case into “terrorism.” Each charge must meet the legal criteria on its own.

🔴 Why aren’t the murders being classified as terrorism if he’s facing a terrorism charge?

The CPS’s decision not to categorise the murders as terror-related doesn’t minimise their severity; it’s simply a matter of legal definitions. Terrorism charges are tied to actions that specifically aim to coerce or intimidate the public or influence government. If the CPS hasn’t found these motives tied directly to the murders, they wouldn’t be classified as terrorism, but this doesn’t diminish the seriousness of the charges he does face.

🔴 Should far-right rioters be released because they’ve been “proven right”?

No, and here’s why: the severity of Rudakubana’s new charges doesn’t vindicate anyone’s vigilante behaviour. Violence or incitement based on speculation or anger remains illegal. Courts don’t - and shouldn’t - operate on mob rule or emotional retaliation.

Being “proven right” would require not only correctly predicting a suspect’s guilt (which remains unproven) but also somehow justifying riotous street violence as a legitimate response. Spoiler: it isn’t.

🔴 Does the far-right have a right to “stand up” as Patriots of Britain suggests?

Anyone can express their views legally, but rioting and inciting violence aren’t part of “standing up”; they’re crimes. So, no, these charges don’t grant a blank cheque for mobs to wreak havoc or assume justice can be “enforced” on the streets. We don’t get to decide guilt through disorder.

The context to keep in mind is that Rudakubana’s new charges only emphasise the importance of keeping a clear head, letting justice do its work, and refusing to turn tragedy into a licence for revenge or rumour-mongering.

There is so much that still needs to come to light in this absolutely horrific case, and we are going to seriously need to keep our heads about us. Because more and more statements are coming out, I’ll be adding to this FAQ to further clarify and contextualise the situation:

🔴 Does charging the Southport suspect with terrorism mean Farage was “right all along”?

Not at all.

Farage’s claim oversimplifies a complex case.

The new charges involve alleged possession of ricin and an Al Qaeda-linked manual, discovered through follow-up searches - not through any sudden “revelation” about the attack itself. Law enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service have clarified that these charges don’t reclassify the attack as terrorism because the initial crime didn’t meet the UK’s terrorism criteria at the time.

Being “right” in Farage’s sense would require not just anticipating new charges but also justifying reckless street violence as a legitimate response.

It’s a convenient narrative, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, especially when the facts demand more than speculative hindsight.

This is very, very good news.

✅ Greater use of technology.
✅ Shifting care from hospitals to communities.
✅ Moving from sickness to prevention.

And fuck me, I’m going to be very, very busy over the next few years.

Bring it on.

🐻 And for anyone keen on reading the findings by Lord Darzi this is based on, here’s the link (I highly recommend reading at least the Executive Summary):



If there was any doubt that the Tories had spectacularly fucked this country over for the past 14 years, the should completely erase those:assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66e1b49e…

Right.

Somehow, I need to spell out something that should be glaringly obvious to anyone with even the tiniest shred of decency, so on that note, let me get my Explaining Crayons and Understanding paper, because there seems to be a whole lot of confusion about something.

To all of the eunuchoid fuck-monkeys who have been noisily frothing at the maw in the comments in my post below:

Yes, Pumpkin, I do understand the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.”

And yes, Cupcake, I am aware of what it means when a case is sub judice.

However, let's stop bullshitting ourselves right here and now because there’s a world of difference between waiting for a legal verdict and recognising two predatory, exploitative, dangerous fucks for exactly what they are. Andrew and Tristan Tate are a clear, objective and present danger to women and girls, and, no, you do not need a court of law to find them guilty of a crime to see, acknowledge and outright condemn it.

These two arrogant soft-cocks have built their entire empire on the backs of women they’ve exploited, degraded, and treated like disposable commodities. Their words, their actions, and their so-called “businesses” are dripping with misogyny and openly predatory.

When someone brags about having "bottom bitches" earning them money and instructs other men in their "Pimping Ho's Degree" on how to control, dominate and manipulate women to become their vassals, there is absolutely zero need for the slam of a gavel to kind of get the idea that you are dealing with a person who should not be allowed within a 100 miles of a woman.

They have made it their overt mission to normalise a culture of control, violence, and outright hatred towards women, and they’ve done it all while laughing their way to the fucking bank.

Now, I’ve seen some people trying to claim that the Tates have done something positive for young men. Let me be crystal fucking clear about two things:

1. No, they have never done anything good for young men, and if you think they have, then oh boy, you have a bit of self-exploration to do.

2. No man should ever be admired for building up his wealth on the blatant exploitation of women. Ever.

It doesn’t matter the tiniest of blue fucking iotas if they’ve sold themselves as role models, tried to paint themselves as champions of masculinity or even if they have given millions upon millions of pounds to charity. If your role models are two men who make their money by treating women like garbage and openly profess to "owning" them, then you need to reassess who the fuck you’re looking up to, and you need to do it quickly, fast.

And to all the toxic little gormless incels still defending these two in the comments, you’re not just deluding yourself - you’re a walking, talking bright red flag, and you should be forced to wear one in public, so everyone knows you’re a danger to women. Because if you’re still championing these two pieces of shit despite everything we know about them, everything they have belligerently and constantly told us, then you’re not just part of the problem - you are an active participant in it.

I will repeat.

This is not about ignoring due process or jumping to conclusions; it’s about facing the brutal, undeniable truth:

Andrew and Tristan Tate are a menace to women and girls because they have told us this time and time again.

So yes, I will still be condemning these two shit-weasels, their actions, their words and every single person who supports them in full, and no, I will not pretend we need to wait for a court to tell us what we already know.

The Tates are a fucking blight on society, and if you’re still making excuses for them, then you need to take fifteen minutes and try go grow the spine you're so very clearly lacking. Exhibit 1: Tate Scamming Men.

Morning, all.

This morning, the people of Sunderland are cleaning up their city after yet another night of targeted right-wing riots. This is the third night this week that we’ve seen far-right thugs infiltrate communities with one goal and one goal only – to cause havoc and sow hateful division. The violence we are witnessing is fuelled by a rather blatant disinformation campaign, and that's precisely why I’m writing this post today (and yes, this is a cup of coffee or tea sit down kind of post, be warned).

Before diving into the specifics, let's clarify the difference between misinformation and disinformation:

🟠 Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread, regardless of intent to mislead. For example, if someone shares an incorrect fact without knowing it’s false, that’s misinformation.

🔴 Disinformation, on the other hand, is deliberately deceptive. It’s the intentional spreading of false information to manipulate public opinion or obscure the truth.

Now, this morning I would like to discuss two ongoing (and very apparent) disinformation campaigns that have poisoned the well of public discourse in ways I've not previously seen, the first one being the disinformation behind the violence and thuggery we've seen on our streets these last few nights.

The Southport Tragedy and Its Exploitation

This week, we witnessed the heinous murder of three young girls in Southport and the injury of nine others. Almost immediately, right-wing agitators kicked off a disinformation campaign, falsely naming the suspect as a Muslim refugee. The suspect, as it turns out, was born in Wales to immigrant parents and isn’t Muslim. This fact was confirmed when the 17-year-old’s name was released. But facts be damned, right? Despite the truth being laid out clearly, the far-right saw an opportunity to fuel their hate-filled agenda.

@tommyrobinson87 and Andrew Tate – two names synonymous with rabble-rousing, violent language and extremism – have been at the forefront, either excusing or inciting violent riots in Southport, Hartlepool, Sunderland, and London. These riots have targeted Muslims and immigrants, groups that had nothing to do with the heinous attack in Southport. Yet, here we are, watching these communities bear the brunt of violence based on outright lies.

@Nigel_Farage, ever the opportunist, has been quick to excuse this behaviour. According to him, we are seeing "a reaction to fear, to discomfort, to unease, that is out there, that is shared by tens of millions of people... What you've seen on the streets of Hartlepool, London of Southport is nothing compared to what could happen over the course of the next few weeks.”

Please, spare me.

Not only content with excusing the Far-Right violence, Farage's ominous warning that “what you’ve seen on the streets... is nothing compared to what could happen” is a blatant attempt to further instil fear and prepare the public for more violence. This is patently not the language of someone seeking to calm tensions or promote peace. Instead, it’s a transparent attempt to fan the flames of division and chaos.

The violent riots on our streets are not about "discomfort" or "fear"; it is purely about capitalising on tragedy to stoke hatred and division. It’s about validating violence against innocent people under the guise of “concerned citizenship.” This narrative must be called what it is: An orchestrated campaign of Far-right Violence and Intimidation, plain and simple.

The Disinformation Campaign Against Imane Khelif

On another front, we have a storm of disinformation swirling around Algerian boxer Imane Khelif at the Paris Olympics. Initially disqualified by the IBA in 2023 for not meeting still unspecified “gender testing” criteria, Khelif was later cleared to compete by the IOC. The IBA, which no longer runs Olympic boxing on the back of some very dodgy dealings, has defended its position but has failed to provide any sort of clarity on what specific gender tests were conducted. This lack of transparency from the IBA raises serious questions about their motives and the integrity of their processes - especially in light of the very real questions about their integrity as an organisation.

Imane Khelif was born a woman, lived as a woman and, for all intents and purposes, is a woman, yet she has been subjected to a smear campaign by those looking to cast doubt on her eligibility and integrity as a tool to further their own transphobic and, let’s be honest, misogynistic agenda - and the comments being flung around are rather telling.

For example, @Glinner's vile comment, “No HE isn't trans. He's just a man. Male puberty, XY chromosomes. Trans activists are pretending otherwise however because they're misogynist scum who would enjoy seeing a woman killed or crippled in the ring,” exemplifies this. Similarly, @ThePosieParker's remark, “Men, with DSDs, in poor countries are scouted by coaches to compete in women’s sports. Everyone knows that they’re men,” are both baseless, inflammatory and perfect examples of the disinformation we have to be so careful of.

The IOC has stringent guidelines to ensure fair competition, and Khelif meets all necessary criteria. But why let facts get in the way of a good outrage, right? This has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of women and everything to do with unjust scrutiny and blatant disinformation aimed at undermining a talented athlete.

The Real-World Consequences of Disinformation

Both these instances – the far-right violence spurred by lies about a murder suspect and the disinformation against Khelif – are stark reminders of the dangers of disinformation. It’s not just about misinformation; it’s about the real-world harm it causes. Innocent people are being targeted, communities are being torn apart, and the fabric of our society is being shredded.

Look back at previous disinformation campaigns in the UK: the false claims about paedophile rings in Hampstead, which led to harassment and threats against innocent people; the misleading information during the Brexit campaign, like the infamous "£350 million for the NHS" bus claim, which has caused deep divisions and ongoing political turmoil; the lies about 5G towers spreading COVID, resulting in arson attacks on telecom infrastructure. These are not just harmless rumours; they have real, often violent, consequences.

We must stop excusing these actions as reactions to fear or unease. We must stop sanitising hate and violence with terms like “concerned citizens.” It’s time to call out disinformation for what it is – a tool used by extremists to manipulate, divide, and destroy, and it’s time to hold those who spread these lies accountable.

If there is one thing that the far-right thugs that have invaded our streets have accidentally right, is that #EnoughIsEnough. If you're not already following @marcowenjones, he has done a fantastic thread detailing disinformation spread about Southport.

https://x.com/marcowenjones/status/1818343641930514674

Right.

I’m all set.

✅ Sudocreme.
✅ 9 Rolls of Quilty Bog Roll.
✅ Loose trousers.
✅ Downton Abbey.

Bottoms up, as the saying goes. Urgh.

That tastes vile.

What do you pair this with, despair?!