ADFScotland

I’ve just watched a whole BBC documentary about the rapid increase in cancer among the young.. It explored food & lifestyle choices, even body sprays & plastics. Not once tho, did they explore whether getting young healthy people vaccinated over & over with a product that had no long term health data, may have played a role🤔

Have just read that folic acid has effects on our genes…We need this removed from our food.

The olive branch needs to be extended once more, I’m afraid. The only conditions should be a non-aggression pact, and agreement not to stand in areas where the other would more likely to win. Neither party should make demands of the other. Restore will not be able to win a 2027 snap GE, and we will be saddled with a permanent left wing coalition, as they’ll change to proportional representation. The primary goal for all three right wing parties is to remove Labour, and any possibility of left wing horror coalition. We are helpless until that happens.

Exactly 💯 I truly empathise 😔

The Russians, whose drone operators are expert at hitting small moving targets, missed the largest commercial aircraft on Earth sitting stationary out in the open? The Russians, who have the world's largest nuclear arsenal and several types of long range hypersonic missiles, sent a delapidated drone to Germany that was booted out of the sky by a local busdriver? Get the Hell out of here, you Fabian fuckwit. I'd wager this drone got to Leipzig in the back of the AN124 it was allegedly targeting. 🤡

The Assisted Suicide Bill is back - and MPs have a first chance to vote on it on 11 September. This is not a vote on the abstract principle of assisted dying, nor a vote merely to continue the debate. It is a vote on this specific Bill. Lauren Edwards' draft is virtually identical to the 2024 Leadbeater Bill, which ran out of time under scrutiny in the House of Lords in April. It retains the same safeguarding flaws, loopholes and inherent dangers. It is unsafe, undemocratic, and could not come at a worse time for the NHS, for hospices, for social care, and for people who cannot obtain the care they need. 👉 EMAIL YOUR MP: together.eaction.org.uk/asbi… Care first Andy Burnham is right that palliative care and social care need to be fixed first. Wes Streeting would not confirm that the legislation could be safely implemented, and pointed to the risk that people might request an assisted death because of unmet need. Over 100,000 people a year die without specialist palliative care. NHS Continuing Healthcare is heavily rationed: most new awards go through the Fast Track route, and 81% of Standard-route assessments are rejected, including people given a six-month prognosis. That is the same group the Bill would make eligible for an assisted death, yet many are denied the funded nursing care that would allow them to live that time with support. Age UK found that more than 28,000 older people in a single year died still waiting for social care. Choice is not exercised in a vacuum. A person denied treatment, palliative care or support is not making the same choice as someone whose needs are met. Why the safeguards are illusory The Bill relies on two doctors being satisfied that a request is free of coercion. Professor Jane Monckton-Smith told the Lords Select Committee that coercion is notoriously difficult to detect, even for specialists, and that additional training is not an adequate safeguard. Chelsea Roff of Eat Breathe Thrive has documented at least 60 assisted deaths among people with eating disorders; the Lords Committee amendment remains too narrow and does not close loopholes for bulimia or insulin restriction in Type 1 diabetes. Disabled people already face discriminatory treatment and a four-fold disparity on NHS waiting lists. No organisation of or for disabled people supports this Bill. People with Down's syndrome can be highly suggestible. Tommy Jessop, ambassador for the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, has asked Parliament to protect people like him from pressure under this law. The Royal College of Psychiatristscannot support the Bill in its current form because it relies on the Mental Capacity Act to assess a decision to end one's own life: a test the College regards as inadequate and dangerous for a choice of that gravity. In care and nursing homes, where most assisted deaths would take place, around 70% of residents have some cognitive impairment, capacity fluctuates, and the same Act was never designed for a decision of this kind. Projected harms The 2026 impact assessment revises the Government's earlier 2025 projections of uptake, raising the upper estimate of first-year applicants from 1,078 to 4,610. Even that is likely an underestimate. The same documents set out savings in NHS treatment, social care, pensions and Attendance Allowance once deaths are brought forward. Elderly people and disabled people are already at heightened risk of abuse and of feeling a burden. Against the backdrop of continuous treatment rationing and calls for sweeping welfare cuts, it is hard to accept that the motive is compassion alone. Impact on hospice and palliative care As the Bill stands, there is no institutional opt-out. Hospices and care homes would be required to allow assisted dying on their premises, regardless of their ethical objections. Palliative care treats symptoms; it does not seek to end patients' lives. Once assisted death is treated as part of end-of-life care, that distinction collapses: Delta Hospice in British Columbia refused to provide it, lost its public funding, and dying patients were given six weeks to move. Kit Malthouse has asked whether hospices in receipt of public funds should be able to "deny what is a legal service." Position of professional bodies The Royal Colleges and other representative bodies remain, in the main, neutral on the principle. None will endorse this Bill as drafted, because of serious safeguarding concerns. That includes the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Association for Palliative Medicine, the British Geriatrics Society and the British Association of Social Workers. The BMA remains officially neutral on whether the law should change; that neutrality is not an endorsement of this Bill, and members have made clear they do not accept any suggestion that the Association supports it. Democratic legitimacy The Terminally Ill Adults Bill is not a Government Bill. It did not feature in the 2024 Labour manifesto and has no democratic mandate. It is a Private Member's Bill. Recent polling found that 60% of the public want palliative, social and end-of-life care fixed before assisted dying is introduced. Those promoting the Bill are nonetheless calling on MPs to pass it through the Commons unamended, so that the Parliament Acts can be held in reserve. This risks pushing legislation onto the statute books that the public did not vote for, did not ask for, and which older and disabled people deeply fear. The decision cannot be left to the Lords. It rests with MPs, and must be taken at Second Reading. We hope MPs will reflect upon not only whether the Bill is safe as drafted, but whether their terminally ill constituents would be better served by investment in palliative care, by research and development into drugs to support more effective pain management, and by increasing access to social care support. We hope they will listen to the voices of the vulnerable and vote against the Bill at Second Reading. Please use our quick tool to email your MP and ask them to attend the debate and vote against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at Second Reading. 👉 EMAIL YOUR MP: together.eaction.org.uk/asbi…

A guy who calls himself 'truth finder Dave' gets the CO2 ratio wrong by 100 times! Its not 4.5%. Not even 0.4%. But 0.04% About 1 part in 2,500 I've made a helpful chart so people can easily understand. Even self-declared 'Truth Finders'

Greece is becoming China! From September, economic exclusion of citizens is coming through credit score! Without a good score you will not have electricity or internet. In an explosive appearance on Open TV, lawyer Mrs. Stamou revealed bluntly what is coming in September: two digital platforms that will rate every citizen based on their debts. The credit‑scoring system and the private‑debt monitoring registry are presented by the government as tools for “rewarding those who are consistent.” In reality, however, they open the road to unprecedented economic and social exclusion. Mrs. Stamou said it clearly: every citizen will enter a scoring process. Not only for loans or banks. Even for electricity, mobile phone service, or internet, a “good score” will be required. Anyone who delays ENFIA, an installment, or a bill by a few days will immediately see their score collapse. And then? They will not be able to connect to electricity, have a phone line, or give their children internet so they can study. Not even open a bank account or get a card. “It is no longer self‑evident that we will all have electricity in our homes or a telephone,” she stressed. The state will record everything public debts at first, later banks, mobile companies, energy providers, even suppliers. Every delay, even of a few days, will be recorded and “punished.” The lawyer dismantled the argument that this is only pressure on “strategic defaulters”: along with them, those who truly cannot pay will be crushed. The family man struggling to survive, the person who lost their job, the patient who delayed an installment due to an emergency. The most nightmarish part? It is already happening. A woman went to request a new electricity connection, presented all documents, and was rejected because she had a “low credit score.” This is not the future. It is the present. Mrs. Stamou described it as ruthless and unjust: “We are grading citizens in order for them to be citizens.” Essentially, Greece is adopting a system strongly reminiscent of China’s social‑credit model. Not to reward the consistent, but to control, pressure, and ultimately exclude those who do not “fit” the new digital mold. This is not reform. It is a digital blockade. It is economic exclusion disguised as “transparency.” And those who present it as progress simply close their eyes to a society where the right to electricity, internet, and dignity will depend on a number on a platform. Source: The Holy Wisdom

True. But let's not forget that it was the Tories who wrote net zero into law, set legally binding targets, banned new exploration of our own resources and slapped massive taxes on those already being exploited. The answer to our problems lies outside the LibLabCon Uniparty.

The First Minister of Scotland advising the Scottish public to take the 'Safe and Effective' Astrazeneca covid vaccine but failing to mention that if any vaccine goes wrong in Scotland you are referred to another countries system which rejects over 98% of all vaccine claims. The same person who said that she would fully comply with the UK's Covid inquiry but deleted all the WhatsApp messages. The same person who when questioned about her thieving husbands stealing answered no comment to every question. There should be a full judicial review with full legal powers into her entire political career.

@KenJLThomson @ADFScotland

This is because Russian oil and gas contains low Carbon Carbon, not the high Carbon Carbon contained in far right British North Sea oil and gas. Trust The Science™, Tom!

NO. We are already wasting vast amounts of money ( 100s of Billions)on reducing our 0.000012% of CO2 in the atmosphere. IT IS BONKERS. There is no evidence that it will make any difference to climate,

Mrs Thatcher left office 36 years ago. Since then we have had Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Starmer as Prime Ministers Mr Burnham is strecthing the point when he tries to blame all the country's woes on her. And many might think many of the woes come from successive PMs NOT being like Mrs Thatcher