Commuters Panic After Fox Jumps On Train

On the final train from Southend Central to London Fenchurch Street, commuters were terrified when a fox boarded the carriage.

Eve Amoateng, 21, was travelling on the late-night c2c service when she witnessed the unexpected hairy passenger in her carriage. 

Unable to call for assistance due to insufficient phone signal, Eve and fellow commuters were trapped as the animal blocked their path to the next carriage. 

It was a fox, not a man-eating tiger, and it would have left them alone if everyone had stayed quiet.

It’s probably one of the safer things to get on a train these days, unlike a knife-wielding nutcase. A fox will usually only attack if it feels threatened. Running about is only going to make it frightened and more likely to attack.

It was a fox, not a wolf, and if not provoked, it will not hurt you. But then a wolf probably would not harm unless it was provoked, but then it’s unlikely a wolf would be foolish enough to catch a train.

I have sympathy for these creatures. They have no other option except to seek nourishment in the filthy metropolises that are replacing their homes.

The purpose of defaming foxes is to allow the so-called nobility to hunt them.

They are lovely animals, and even though it appeared to be very comfortable sitting on the seat, it must have been afraid. It was clearly trying to find a warm place to sleep.

His mates probably told him the trains were running again, and he couldn’t believe it and had to come and look for himself.

Foxes frequently come out and walk in the park behind me, and the cubs follow, and I love it when I see them – nature is stunning.

Undoubtedly, the fox had things to do and places to be but thought it would have a snooze on the way.

The fox was hardly the real concern here. What would have been truly alarming is if Keir Starmer had boarded the train. In terms of cunning, Starmer far surpasses any fox and is far more dangerous.

Will I Get Fined For Not Having A National ID Card, And What If I Don’t Have A Smartphone?

A government-issued digital identity card could be required by every adult in Britain under a ‘dystopian’ plan set to be announced by the Prime Minister.

The ‘BritCard’ could be used to prove a person has the right to work in this country and even to access public services.

The concept of a mandatory identification system has long been supported by Labour as a way to tackle illegal migration.

But the proposal is fiercely opposed by civil rights campaigners, who warn it will erode civil liberties and turn the UK into a ‘papers please’ society.

Meanwhile, polls reveal a preponderance of the public do not trust ministers to keep their personal data safe from cybercriminals.

Detailed proposals for what has been dubbed a ‘BritCard’ could be announced by Sir Keir Starmer as early as tomorrow.

Alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister will give a speech at the Global Progress Action Summit in London.

These plans will then be subject to a consultation and are anticipated to require legislation. The UK is one of the few countries in Europe without an ID system.

How would Sir Keir Starmer’s new ID cards work?

It is likely to be a smartphone app, rather than a physical card.

A previous UK scheme – eventually abandoned – relied on a digital photograph which could be used to verify someone’s identity by calculating the exact distance between their facial features.

It is likely that any new scheme would require holders to also provide other biometric details – such as fingerprints.

Details on the card could be cross-referenced against a central database holding tens of millions of records for the British population.

Since the initiative is probably going to be smartphone-based, it may also make use of the face ID capabilities that are often found on phones, such as in personal banking applications.

However, the government is thought to be some distance away from coming up with clear proposals.

Hasn’t this all been tried before?

Yes. Tony Blair’s Labour government passed legislation for a national ID card scheme in 2006.

Detailed plans were published when Jacqui Smith was home secretary, although by that time, ministers had ditched the idea of making the cards compulsory.

The scheme actually went into operation in 2009, when Alan Johnson was running the Home Office, with credit card-style cards which each held a microchip.

The Passport Service issued the cards at £30 a pop to volunteers from October 2009.

However, Theresa May, the home secretary at the time, abandoned the entire plan following the general election the following year.

By then, £257 million had been spent on the proposals.

Couldn’t Labour’s new cards just be forged like any other document?

The kind of checks that are incorporated into the system would determine how resilient it is.

Theoretically, a digital ID card would be more difficult to counterfeit than a paper one.

For instance, a live cross-referencing with a central computer database of names and photos would be almost impossible to cheat – because the holder of the digital ‘card’ would have to look like the photo held on the database.

Less stringent checks, however, would have the possibility to be hoaxed.

It is really too soon to judge the potential success of Labour’s initiative.

Will I get fined if I refuse to have a national ID card?

Fines for non-registration were not part of the earlier attempt by the Labour administration to implement a mandatory program.

This was mostly due to the roll-out never progressing to a mandatory level.

The program’s underlying legislation did, however, provide a number of sanctions for neglecting to update data that is kept on you, including your home address or any name changes.

The penalties were up to £1,000.

There were comparable penalties for failing to surrender a card.

It’s still unclear how Labour will implement the new plan and how it plans to handle refuseniks.

What is it meant to achieve?

The card might be used to verify that a person is who they claim to be and that they are authorised to be in the United Kingdom.

Labour is interested in the programme in order to crack down on illegal working.

Theoretically, this would make Britain less appealing to illegal immigrants and small boat migrants.

It would also make life more difficult for foreigners who come to Britain legally but then fail to leave and yet carry on working.

Further uses of the card could be in other situations where people have to demonstrate they have the right to be in Britain – such as the ‘right to rent’ a property.

Where the project would become highly controversial is surrounding access to healthcare and social security.

Labour’s last stab at a national identity card was first floated by then Home Secretary David Blunkett in 2001, when he referred to it as an ‘entitlement card’.

At that stage, it was intended to allow people to prove they had the right to access the NHS or welfare benefits.

But there was resistance from doctors, for instance, who said life-saving treatment could not be denied on the grounds of nationality.

The NHS continues to have tremendous difficulty clawing back cash from foreign nationals who have come to Britain as ‘health tourists’.

What if I don’t have a smartphone?

It is far too early to say how Labour’s scheme would deal with people who do not have a smartphone.

This group is likely to include a large number of elderly people.

If they, or others, were penalised under the scheme, it would risk being dubbed discriminatory.

A solution could be providing an alternative way to access the details typically held on a digital ID card – perhaps using a laptop or desktop computer – when required.

How much is it likely to cost the taxpayer?

Billions of pounds.

It would probably be necessary to start from scratch when developing the IT systems.

Depending on the specification of the card, it could require a network of centres across the country where members of the public provide their biometrics.

What are the potential problems?

It would be a huge waste of money if the system fails, like the last one did.

The scheme’s technology is probably unlike anything the British government has tried in the past.

The civil service’s record on managing the roll-out of new IT scheme is abysmal – a slew of schemes have run years late and billions of pounds over budget.

To put it mildly, this enormous new endeavour would be extremely risky.

Then there are the huge civil liberties questions posed by a national ID card scheme.

Unlike numerous other regions of the world, peacetime Britain has never had a ‘papers please’ culture.

Many will believe their privacy has been violated.

Pressure group Big Brother Watch has said the plan suggests Britain is ‘sleepwalking into a dystopian nightmare’.

The issue of data security comes next.

The government has suffered a large number of damaging data leaks and hacks.

It might have disastrous consequences if a new database with all of the information was hacked.

Do other countries have digital ID cards?

Digital IDs are used in numerous nations, such as Estonia, Spain, Portugal, Germany, India, the United Arab Emirates, and France.

France has said time and time again that Channel migrants are drawn to the UK because of the absence of ID cards, which allows them to operate in the illegal economy.

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said it won’t ‘make a blind bit of difference to illegal migration’.

There will eventually be riots in the streets everywhere. These monsters have forced millions of illegal immigrants on us and are going to force us to have these ID cards because of them, but it will be fruitless.

Anything can and will be forged, just like currency and passports.

Although proponents contend that cutting-edge security features like encryption and user authentication make digital IDs more difficult to fabricate than physical papers, no system is impervious to malfunction or hacking, and digital IDs may and will be falsified or exploited in various ways.

My first thought was, ‘no way are they going to do this.’ My second thought was that ‘maybe it might help crack down on illegal migrants’, and my third thought was ‘no way are the police going to ask anyone likely to be an illegal just in case the other person might get hurt-y feelings.’ So, in my opinion, it’s a waste of time, but of course, nobody is interested in my opinion, especially the government.

However, is this really about illegals or is it just about control, or maybe it’s both? Whatever it is, it’s an agenda, an agenda to control you, and that eventually we will own nothing and be happy.

There was an abundance of people who were brainwashed into downloading the NHS Track and Trace app, and people were using it quite happily without considering the negative effects it would have on us; it was software to control our every move, hence why it was called Track and Trace.

We are spending money that we do not have on digital ID cards that will not deter immigration, even though the UK already has a £20 billion black hole in its economy. There’s indeed something sinister beneath the facade; there always is.

Even worse, you will eventually be required to provide identification at all times and won’t be allowed to leave your house without one. In fact, you won’t be able to do anything without one.

Actress And Holocaust Survivor, 96, Dies With Husband, 97, At Swiss Suicide Clinic

Tributes have poured in for an actress and Holocaust survivor who ‘died at a Swiss suicide clinic’ alongside her husband.

Devoted couple Ruth Posner, 96, and husband Michael, 97, informed their family and friends they had taken their own lives in an email.

Neither had terminal illnesses, but the couple, from Belsize Park, north London, decided they did not want to be apart after almost 75 years married.

They addressed a message to ‘Dear family and friends’ on Tuesday and wrote, ‘So sorry not to have mentioned it, but when you receive this email, we will have “shuffled off this mortal coil”.

‘The decision was mutual and without any outside pressure. We had lived a long life and together for almost 75 years. There came a point when failing senses of sight and hearing and lack of energy were not living but existing, and that no care would improve.

‘We had an interesting and varied life, and except for the sorrow of losing Jeremy, our son. We enjoyed our time together; we tried not to regret the past, live in the present and not to expect too much from the future.

‘Much love, Ruth & Mike.’

A Campaign Against Antisemitism statement on Thursday said, ‘We are heartbroken to learn of the passing of Ruth Posner BEM, Holocaust survivor and educator, and her husband Michael.

‘Thank you, Ruth. You were an inspiration and a shining example of how to use one’s voice for good in this world. You will be greatly missed. May their memories be a blessing.’

Chief Executive of The Holocaust Educational Trust, Karen Pollock CBE, said, ‘Ruth was an extraordinary woman. She survived the Radom Ghetto, slave labour and life in hiding under a false identity. By the end of the war, Ruth and her aunt were the only surviving members of her family.

‘After a dazzling career in theatre and dance, Ruth decided to begin sharing her testimony as a response to rising levels of antisemitism in the UK. Although then in her eighties, she made it her mission to speak to as many young people as possible about her experiences during the Holocaust.

‘She hoped that the leaders of tomorrow would learn the lessons of the past. Ruth was one of a kind. Full of charisma and warmth, she left an impression on everyone she met. We will miss her.’

Ms Posner used a falsified passport to escape the Warsaw ghetto and posed as a Catholic school student during three years spent on the run with her aunt.

The extermination camp at Treblinka claimed the lives of the remainder of her family.

On her arrival in the UK aged 16, Ms Posner did not speak any English but soon began training as a dancer and enrolled at the London Contemporary Dance Theatre. 

She subsequently started acting school, studying theatre arts at Hunter College in New York before gaining membership at the Royal Shakespeare Company.

The Holocaust survivor went on to become a star of both the film and TV worlds, receiving acclaim for roles in the movies Leon The Pig Farmer and Love Hurts.

She also appeared in a number of popular television series, including The Ruth Rendell Mysteries and Casualty.

Ms Posner acted for 80 years and recently played Polish princess Katya in the BBC comedy series Count Arthur Strong.

She married her British husband, Michael, in 1950, and the couple travelled the world thanks to his work as a chemist for Unilever and Unicef.

They were struck by tragedy in later life when their son Jeremy died aged 37 during his recovery from heroin addiction.

A grandchild is the couple’s surviving child.

Sonja Linden, an artistic director and playwright who was friends with the pair for 30 years, told The Times Ms Posner was ‘frail’ and her husband suffered from macular degeneration and poor hearing.

She insisted the couple remained ‘intellectually very well’ and had no severe illnesses.

Their friend added, ‘We did not know they had actually gone until we received the email, which is sad as we wanted to say goodbye.

‘They had such a lovely flat packed with art and books, and I can’t imagine them not being there.’

Ms Linden revealed Zurich’s Dignitas clinic would not assist the couple’s death because they did not receive a doctor’s note saying they had less than six months to live, as per their policy.

Instead, they ended their lives at the Pegasos clinic near Basel.

Ms Posner and Ms Linden worked together in a 2014 theatre production about her experiences during the Holocaust titled Who Do We Think We Are?

She was awarded a British Empire Medal in 2022 for her services to Holocaust education.

At least they passed away together – the way they wanted.

They took control at the end while they were still able to decide where, when and how. It was a remarkably brave and loving decision.

She was a beautiful lady, the last of the very few who understood the atrocities that man can create, but lived life to the full and with such elegance.

Frank Sinatra would have said, ‘I did it my way,’ and they did.

Bruce Forsyth’s Ghost Is Haunting The London Palladium

With a little light-hearted banter for the day.

The ghost of the legendary TV host Bruce Forsyth has been haunting the London Palladium with his iconic tagline ‘nice to see you, to see you nice’, a paranormal expert has claimed.

It was in the 1950s, when he was 30 years old, that he got his major break on the ITV series Sunday Night at the London Palladium. 

It was in the 70s that his catchphrases became nationally recognised, including ‘Nice to see you, to see you nice’ and ‘Didn’t they do well?’.

Paranormal expert Brocarde has claimed she knew Sir Bruce was ‘watching over’ when she heard his ‘unmistakable’ saying while interviewing magicians Penn Jillette and Piff the Magic Dragon.

She said, ‘I kept getting distracted by the words “nice to see you”.’

‘At first, I dismissed it. Then came the unmistakable second half, ‘to see you nice!’, followed by mischievous laughter.

‘That’s when I knew Sir Bruce was in the room. I felt like he was watching over the interview.

‘I even heard him mention a fire extinguisher, which was hilarious considering all the fire puns flying around during the chat.

‘He definitely knew I was speaking with ‘magic dragons’.’

The London Palladium held great significance for the performer, who performed with Sammy Davis Jr. and earned his claim to fame there.

His ashes were even buried under the stage, where he ended his career as host of Strictly in 2014.

The venue is said to have had a ‘special place in Bruce’s heart’ and his family considered the move as a ‘perfect tribute’. 

Despite the heavy schedule, he admitted that he cherished his days playing at the London Palladium.

He said, ‘We did 40 weeks a year with 40 different top-of-the-bill acts. Where could you even find 40 different top-of-the-bills these days…apart from me!’  

Brocarde, 42, from Oxfordshire, became notorious for her ‘marriage’ to a Victorian ghost.

She insists she met soldier Edwardo after the ghoul ‘burst’ into her bedroom one night during a storm, but after their ‘wedding’ on Halloween 2022, things went downhill.

She added, ‘He grew increasingly more aggressive and nasty and began to haunt me with the sound of a screaming baby,’ she said.

According to Brocarde, she eventually divorced him through an exorcism.

To be honest, I’m not sure who is more foolish, the woman for telling her tale, the newspaper that published it, or me for reading it! However, people do read articles like these, and publishers pay good money for publishing.

I guess we all believe in something because we need to believe that there is something after this life, but Brocarde married a ghost, and we are here giving her coverage.

I kind of wanted to believe her, but then I read that she married a ghost and all her credibility went out of the window, along with the ghost! Perhaps it was just a ‘Brucie bonus’. Maybe the mould in the London Palladium is causing similar hallucinations to those of magic mushrooms, but ‘didn’t she do well’

She Was Dismissed 20 Times By Her Doctor

According to new NHS guidelines, general practitioners will need to get a second opinion if they are unable to diagnose a patient after three visits.

The ‘three strikes and rethink’ system comes into effect across England today with the aim of speeding up diagnoses and cutting avoidable deaths.

It comes after worries that an excessive number of people are having their symptoms ignored or disregarded until their illness is too severe to cure.

The policy will be known as Jess’s Rule, in tribute to Jessica Brady, who contacted her GP surgery about 20 times in the six months before her demise from cancer, aged 27.

The Stevenage-based Airbus engineer complained of weight loss, coughing, vomiting, and stomach discomfort but was given virtual appointments and a lot of prescription drugs, including steroids and antibiotics.

She was also told she was suffering from long COVID and that she was too young for her symptoms to be anything serious.

Ms Brady was eventually diagnosed with adenocarcinoma, which had spread throughout her body – but only after her mother paid for her to see a doctor privately.

She was put on oxygen and passed away in the hospital three weeks later, in 2020.

The new initiative tells GPs to think again if, after three appointments, they have been unable to offer a substantiated diagnosis or the patient’s symptoms have escalated.

Although many general practitioners now employ comparable strategies in complicated circumstances, Jess’s Rule will standardise this nationwide.

It was created in cooperation with NHS England and the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP).

The guideline can entail scheduling in-person consultations in the event that prior sessions were conducted remotely, doing comprehensive physical examinations, or requesting further diagnostic testing.

Additionally, it encourages general practitioners to thoroughly examine patient records, get second opinions from colleagues, and, when necessary, think about referring patients to specialists.

Andrea Brady, Jess’s mum, said, ‘Jess lived for just three short weeks following her terminal cancer diagnosis.

‘Despite her shock and devastation, she showed unfailing courage, positivity, dignity, and love.

‘Jess was determined that people should understand how desperately she had tried to advocate for herself and seek a resolution for her declining health.

‘In the bleak weeks following the loss of Jess, I realised it was my duty to continue what she had started.

‘It has taken nearly five years to bring about Jess’s Rule. I would like to dedicate this initiative to all the young people who have been diagnosed too late.

‘It has only been made possible because of the people who have listened—politicians, medics, and nearly half a million who supported the campaign.’

According to research, individuals from ethnic minority origins and younger people frequently experience delays in receiving a diagnosis of dangerous diseases since their symptoms do not mirror those of older or white patients.

A report from the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation found that half of 16- to 24-year-olds needed three or more interactions with a healthcare professional from a GP practice before being diagnosed with cancer, compared to one in five across the entire population.

Paul Callaghan, policy manager at patient watchdog Healthwatch England, said Jess’s Rule will come as a ‘relief’ to patients living with the ‘anxiety of worrying symptoms’ but unable to get a diagnosis.

He added, ‘Jess’s Rule will also improve patient safety by ensuring more rapid diagnosis of cancer and other illnesses and provide clarity to those experiencing sickness or ill health.

‘Feedback from the public consistently highlights their frustration with long waits for diagnosis and treatment.

‘It is vital that the rule is implemented quickly and consistently, and people can make informed decisions about their care.

‘It’s also imperative that specialist teams have the resources to deal with potential increases in demand, resulting from increased referrals.’

Every person deserves the same standard of care, regardless of their age or background. Still, research reveals that too many young people and those from ethnic minority backgrounds face delays getting proper diagnoses because their symptoms don’t fit standard patterns doctors expect to see in older, white patients.

Professor Kamila Hawthorne, Chair of the Royal College of GPs, said, ‘No GP will ever want to miss signs of serious illness, such as cancer.

‘Ensuring a timely diagnosis often means better outcomes for patients – but many conditions, including many cancers, are challenging to identify in primary care because the symptoms are often similar to other, less serious and more common conditions.

‘Alternative diagnoses are often more likely, particularly when considering risk factors such as age.

‘If a patient repeatedly presents with the same or similar symptoms, but the treatment plan does not seem to be making them better – or their condition is deteriorating – it is best practice to review the diagnosis and consider alternative approaches.

‘We hope that by formalising this with Jess’s Rule, it will remind GPs to keep this at the forefront of their minds.’

Health secretary Wes Streeting said, ‘Jessica Brady’s death was a preventable and unnecessary tragedy.

‘I want to thank her courageous family, who have campaigned tirelessly through unimaginable grief to ensure Jessica’s legacy helps to save the lives of others.

‘Patient safety must be the bedrock of the NHS, and Jess’ Rule will make sure every patient receives the thorough, compassionate, and safe care that they deserve while supporting our hard-working GPs to catch potentially deadly illnesses.

‘I don’t want any family to endure the pain Jessica’s family has been through.

‘This government will learn from such tragedies and is taking decisive action to improve patient safety.’

Dr Claire Fuller, national medical director at NHS England, said, ‘I am very humbled by the efforts of Andrea and Simon Brady, who have campaigned for this important initiative which will undoubtedly save lives by avoiding missed or delayed diagnoses and ensuring patients receive the right treatment at the right time.’

‘Many clinicians already apply a version of “three strikes and rethink” in their routine practice, but Jess’s Rule formalises this instinctive approach, providing a consistent structure to support reflection and timely action for patients.’

Sadly, GPs are the root of the problem, along with obnoxious receptionists who believe they are the doctor. People have been messed about for ages, and you end up going around in circles.

No doctor should be brushing off their patient; they should be connecting with them. If they had taken Jess’s symptoms seriously, then she may have stood a chance – this is not good enough, and more needs to be done.

I understand that doctors are not God, but if they are truly not sure, they should always seek a second opinion. My own father died of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, first diagnosed as arthritis, and when he really became ill and had to have a blood transfusion at the hospital, he was then diagnosed with this horrible disease; he died 7 weeks later. However, if his doctor had taken more notice, he may have survived.

The patient is never listened to, the healthcare sector is extremely misogynistic, and they expect us to put up and shut up.

Paracetamol Concerns Among Pregnant Women

In response to Donald Trump’s assertions, pregnant women in Britain have started calling pharmacists with worries that paracetamol usage may be connected to autism.

The US President said there had been a ‘meteoric rise’ in cases of autism, and he suggested Tylenol – which is called paracetamol in the UK – is a potential cause.

He said the painkillers should not be taken during pregnancy, suggesting pregnant women should ‘tough it out’, and also raised unfounded concerns about vaccines.

But his comments have been criticised by Health Secretary Wes Streeting, while autism campaigners and scientists in the UK described it as ‘misinformation’.

Now, the Independent Pharmacies Association (IPA), an industry body, has told the Daily Mail that pregnant women have been asking their local chemists for advice.

IPA chief executive Dr Leyla Hannbeck said, ‘We have had some pregnant women contacting their local pharmacists asking about the impact of paracetamol following President Trump’s claim. Paracetamol has been used for years and is a safe painkiller in pregnancy when taken as per the recommended dose.

‘Pain and fever, if left untreated, can have more impact on the baby in pregnancy than taking paracetamol as per the recommended dose. Your community pharmacist can provide you with the help and advice you need if you are worried or are unsure.

‘The information coming out of the White House must be consistent with evidence and research; otherwise, it risks causing patient safety issues and causing unnecessary worry amongst patients.’

Earlier today, Mr Streeting said, ‘I trust doctors over President Trump, frankly, on this,’ as he urged pregnant women not to pay ‘any attention whatsoever’ to the US president.

He told ITV’s Lorraine: ‘I’ve just got to be really clear about this: there is no evidence to link the use of paracetamol by pregnant women to autism in their children. None.

‘In fact, a major study was done back in 2024 in Sweden, involving 2.4 million children, and it did not uphold those claims.

Mr Trump’s comments about vaccines are a particular concern at a time when ‘you’ve got kids in this country now dying of measles and whooping cough, kids not taking the RSV vaccine when those respiratory diseases can be life-threatening in our children.’

In his White House announcement, Mr Trump said: ‘There are certain groups of people that don’t take vaccines and don’t take any pills, that have no autism.’

Turning to US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, he asked, ‘Is that a correct statement?’

Mr Trump said the US Food and Drug Administration would be notifying all US doctors with new guidance about paracetamol.

‘Ideally, you don’t take it at all, but if you have to, if you can’t tough it out, if there’s a problem, you’re going to end up doing it.’

On combined vaccines, he said, ‘It’s so important to me to… see the doctor four times or five times for a vaccine. Don’t let them pump your baby up with the largest pile of stuff you’ve ever seen in your entire life going into the delicate little body of a baby.

‘Even if it’s two years, three years, four years… I would say five, but let’s say four visits to the doctor instead of one.’

Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, outgoing chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, warned of the danger posed by Mr Trump’s comments.

‘I am really worried that this rise of misinformation from many different parties, including the government in the United States, does undermine confidence globally,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s World at One.

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement on Tuesday confirming there is ‘no evidence that taking paracetamol during pregnancy causes autism in children’.

Dr Alison Cave, chief safety officer at the MHRA, said, ‘Paracetamol remains the recommended pain relief option for pregnant women when used as directed.

‘Pregnant women should continue to follow existing NHS guidance and speak to their healthcare professional if they have questions about any medication during pregnancy.

‘Untreated pain and fever can pose risks to the unborn baby, so it is important to manage these symptoms with the recommended treatment.

‘Our advice on medicines in pregnancy is based on rigorous assessment of the best available scientific evidence.

‘Any new evidence that could affect our recommendations would be carefully evaluated by our independent scientific experts.

‘We continuously monitor the safety of all medicines, including those used during pregnancy, through robust monitoring and surveillance. We encourage anyone to report any suspected side-effects to us via the Yellow Card scheme.’

Mel Merritt, head of policy and campaigns at the National Autistic Society, said, ‘The incessant misinformation about autism from President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. risks undermining decades of research by respected experts in the field.

‘Understandably, autistic people will be dismayed and frightened by this announcement, and we would urge our government and the NHS to stand by autistic people and to condemn this misinformation. To do otherwise risks creating further fear, stigmatisation and harm.

‘We urge anyone looking for information about autism to visit websites from trusted organisations such as the NHS and the National Autistic Society.’

Experts say the rise in autism cases in the US is mainly because of a new definition for the disorder that now includes mild cases on a spectrum and better diagnoses.

In the UK, the NHS website says, ‘Paracetamol is the first choice of painkiller if you’re pregnant. It’s commonly taken during pregnancy and does not harm your baby.’

Dr Monique Botha, associate professor in social and developmental psychology at Durham University, said, ‘There are many studies which refute a link, but the most important was a Swedish study of 2.4 million births published in 2024 which used actual sibling data and found no relationship between exposure to paracetamol in utero and subsequent autism, ADHD or intellectual disability.

‘This suggests no causal effect of paracetamol in autism.

‘Similarly, pain relief for pregnant women is woefully lacking, and paracetamol is a much safer pain relief option during pregnancy than basically any other alternative, and we need to take pain seriously for women, including whilst pregnant.

‘The fearmongering will prevent women from accessing the appropriate care during pregnancy.

‘Further, it risks stigmatising families who have autistic children as having brought it on themselves and reinvigorates the long pattern of maternal shame and blame as we’ve seen re-emerge repeatedly over the last 70 years, where we try to pay the fault of autism at the mother’s door one way or another.’

Professor Claire Anderson, president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said: ‘Paracetamol has been used safely by millions of people for decades, including during pregnancy, when taken as directed.

‘It is the first-line choice for pain management and fever control in a variety of patients, including pregnant women, children and the elderly.

‘A large study conducted in 2024 found no evidence of a link between paracetamol use in pregnancy and an increased risk of autism in children.’

In August this year, a study from Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and Mount Sinai Hospital reported that exposure to acetaminophen, which is also known as Tylenol or paracetamol, during pregnancy may mean children were more likely to develop neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and ADHD.

They concluded that, while measures should be taken to limit acetaminophen use, the drug was essential for treating fever and pain in mothers, which could also harm babies.

Trump seriously needs to come with a health warning.

Small Boat Migrants Are Having Babies To Get British Passports

Small boat migrants accommodated in asylum hotels are having babies because they believe it will increase their odds of gaining a British passport, a new documentary has revealed.

Asylum seekers told the programme they were having children in the belief it would automatically ensure the mother and baby both secure the documentation, a hope the show insisted was ‘misguided’.

‘They do believe it gives them more entitlement to benefits, maybe a better choice of accommodation and makes it harder for the Home Office to deport them,’ BBC reporter Sue Mitchell said in the documentary.

‘One of the first babies I meet is proudly held aloft by his father – they arrived from Somalia just weeks earlier and he tells me this is a “British baby”, born on “British soil”, who will one day, he believes, hold a British passport.’

But asylum seekers who have children in the UK can still be deported by the Home Office. However, the Refugee Council’s Jon Featonby insisted they qualified for extra safeguards, which makes this harder.

Elsewhere in the documentary, which saw Ms Mitchell visit four hotels for the BBC’s File of Four programme, migrants described being sent hundreds of miles by cab for NHS appointments at a tremendous expense to the taxpayer.

A failed asylum seeker in an unnamed hotel used by the Home Office told the BBC he had been sent on a 250-mile, £600 taxi ride for a knee check-up.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood asked officials to ‘urgently look into’ the use of taxis after the claims emerged.

Other migrants in hotels visited by the broadcaster said they were working in Britain, despite being barred from taking employment.

One Iraqi man, identified by the alias ‘Kadir’ to shield his identity, said he would have preferred to have gone to his NHS appointment by train.

But he ‘had no choice’ other than to accept the transport laid on by the Home Office.

The taxi journeys take place because when migrants move between hotels, they sometimes keep the same NHS doctors, the broadcaster said.

Kadir’s journey was to see a consultant who had treated him at his old address, he said, and the driver told him the round trip had cost £600.

‘Should the Home Office give me the ticket for the train? This is the easy way, and they know they spend too much money,’ said Kadir.

‘We know as well, but we don’t have any choice. It’s crazy.’

Migrants were not offered the option to travel by public transport or to walk to the appointments, and taxis were booked by an ‘automated system’ at the hotel front desk, it was reported.

Nine years ago, Kadir and his spouse brought two children to the UK from Iraq, and since then, they have welcomed a third.

The family occupies two adjoining hotel rooms – one for the couple and their baby and the other for the 12-year-old daughter and 14-year-old son.

Kadir said he worked as a translator in his home country and claimed he had been targeted by criminals.

His asylum claim was rejected by the Home Office due to a lack of proof. He has had two appeals rejected and has a third appeal underway.

He added that some migrants he knew had converted to Christianity in a bid to increase their chances of staying in the country.

They claimed the religion change would lead to persecution if they went back home. 

A woman from Iraq also claimed she paid people smugglers to cross the Channel in order to get treatment for her stage four cancer. 

Mohammed, from Afghanistan, said he had arranged a job even before he arrived in the UK a few weeks ago.

After using contacts supplied by his cousin, who was also working illegally in Britain, Mohammed said he was earning £20 a day for shifts that last up to 10 hours.

He told the BBC he had no choice because his family owes money to people traffickers.

One security guard at one of the hotels said, ‘You’ve got nothing to occupy these guys. So of course they’re going to go out there and work.’

Journalists and the public are banned from Home Office migrant hotels but the BBC said it had ‘gained access through migrant contacts who had made the journey across the English Channel from France’.

Ms Mitchell added that she had chatted to families who had been waiting in the country for almost a decade for their cases to be ruled on.

Migrants interviewed on the programme also admitted doing black market jobs, with some paid as little as £20 for shifts of 10 or 11 hours.

Arrivals have previously secured asylum by arguing deportation Article 3 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against persecution and torture. 

With money going back to the asylum seekers’ home country as soon as they were paid, many of these occupations had been arranged before they had even crossed the Channel.

At the end of June, there were just over 32,000 in taxpayer-funded hotels, up eight per cent in a year.

The Home Office has also said an all-time high of 111,084 asylum applications were lodged in the year to June, up 14 per cent on the previous 12 months.

Despite increasing numbers, Labour has said it will close all migrant hotels by 2029.

In August, the Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary injunction by the High Court to prevent the placement of migrants at the Bell hotel in Epping.

However, the Home Office was successful in contesting the ruling at the Court of Appeal, and the hotel is still operating while any additional legal proceedings are ongoing.

The amount of taxpayers’ money spent on asylum support fell to £4.76 billion in 2024-25, down from £5.38 billion the previous year.

But costs are massively higher than a decade ago, when the figure stood at less than £475 million a year.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘The Home Secretary has asked the department to urgently look into the use of taxis to transfer asylum seekers.’

Ongoing appeals are pointless; if they fail, it’s a failure, period.

Surely it’s not right to keep going in the hope that some loony judge will pass it through. Aside from the cost to the taxpayer, it’s quite unbelievable and completely out of control.

However, illegal boat migrants are only the tip of the iceberg. Muslim babies in the UK are being born at three times the number of British babies, and every single one will grow up to vote for a Muslim parliamentary candidate. The maths does not lie, and in two short generations they will hold the balance of power in the UK. Mark my words, the future is grim, particularly for women.

They treat us like an ATM machine and have everything handed to them when they arrive in the UK.

Taxis at £600 a pop – this is a gravy train if I ever saw one. There is a significant misappropriation of public funds, which is appalling.

Our government is content to give all of this money to migrants but not to its own UK citizens; they just bleed them dry. Let’s be realistic here: the taxpayers of this country are being taken for a ride, plain and simple, and our government are letting it happen.

And what is the cost to the UK taxpayer of a family of four spending nine years in a hotel? This must end because it is ludicrous.

For the British people, this is just another kick in the teeth.

These taxi rides are demented, and we are the sheep who are paying for this. You couldn’t make this up if you tried. Mark my words, all of what is going on will end in bloodshed if we don’t chuck out this insane government.

Britain, the country that keeps giving – to the wrong people.

William Is Urging His Father To Disown Fergie And Andrew Over The Epstein Scandal

Prince William and his father are at odds over whether to banish Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew over their friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, a royal source has told the Daily Mail.

King Charles doesn’t want to completely disown the Duchess of York and his brother because both are loyal to him and the Crown – unlike Harry and Meghan. 

The monarch is encountering tremendous pressure to expunge Fergie over the grovelling messages she sent to her ‘supreme friend’, Jeffrey Epstein.

So far, seven charities publicly severed their partnerships with the Duchess of York in 24 hours, with others still reviewing their positions.

However, for now, Charles is said not to want to cut all ties, reflecting their loyalty, to ensure his sister-in-law doesn’t go rogue like the Sussexes, and to respect the wishes of his late mother, the Queen. 

But the more hardline The Prince of Wales considers his uncle and aunt to be a ‘pair of chancers’ and had enough of them long before the Duchess of York’s latest scandal.

‘His face as he stood next to Andrew at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral said it all,’ an insider said.

‘William feels even more strongly than the King that Andrew and Fergie are an embarrassment and will be urging his father to act,’ the source claimed.

‘The optics of that pair of chancers guffawing away [at events] look terrible.’

Charles will probably immediately ban the divorced couple from appearing in public with the Royal Family at events such as Christmas.  He may also ultimately evict them from Royal Lodge, their Windsor mansion, which William is said to be demanding as a minimum.

‘The difference between the Yorks and the Sussexes is that Andrew and Fergie have never publicly criticised the monarchy or the King. Andrew’s friends say that even in private, they’ve never heard him say a bad word about his brother’, the Daily Mail’s royal source said.

‘The King doesn’t want to cut ties with his brother, former sister-in-law and that side of the family. The late Queen, conscious that Fergie was the mother of her granddaughters, always took that view, even if Prince Philip couldn’t bear to be in the same room as Sarah.’

But the monarch faces a battle with Prince William, who will be ‘urging’ his father to take the opportunity to cut them loose and boot them out of their 30-bedroom home close to Windsor Castle.

William has his eye on the future of the Royal Family, and for the good of the family, they must never be seen at events again, the Daily Mail’s insider has said.

The Prince of Wales is said to want them out of the Royal Lodge to fend for themselves. Andrew has reportedly refused to move to the much smaller Frogmore Cottage.

The royal source has suggested the palace may advise Sarah Ferguson to do a mea culpa interview – but nothing like Andrew’s disastrous Newsnight grilling that heaped more shame on him and his family.

‘I think there’s plenty more to come out yet about Epstein and Andrew. Perhaps the Royal Household should be thinking about pre-empting it all by coming clean,’ the source said.

‘The Duchess of York can be extraordinarily charming. So I’m sure she will be backpedalling furiously. But this latest scandal threatens her ability to earn money as well as her charity patronages. Who can say what effect that will have on the Yorks’ ability to afford the costs of staying at Royal Lodge, where they live at opposite ends of the (30-room) house?’

In emails revealed by The Mail on Sunday this weekend, she described Epstein as a ‘supreme friend’ and ‘humbly’ apologised for an interview in which she disowned him after a £15,000 loan he gave her came to light.

Astonishingly, she told Epstein she only tried to distance herself from him to save her reputation and work as a children’s author.

The Teenage Cancer Trust has dropped Sarah, Duchess of York, as patron after 35 years.

Several charities severed relations with the duchess on Monday after it emerged she apologised to the sex offender in April 2011 after publicly disowning him in the media.

In a statement, the Teenage Cancer Trust said, ‘We have made the decision to end our relationship with the Duchess of York, and as of today, she is no longer a patron of Teenage Cancer Trust.

‘We have communicated this decision to the Duchess. We would like to thank the Duchess of York for her support.’

The charity’s announcement followed similar statements from Wiltshire- and Dorset-based children’s hospice Julia’s House, Prevent Breast Cancer, and The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, who all cut ties with the duchess on Monday.

The British Heart Foundation also said the duchess was no longer a serving ambassador for the charity.

Julia’s House was the first to announce its decision to terminate its association with the duchess, saying it would be ‘inappropriate for her to continue as a patron of the charity’ – citing her correspondence with Epstein as a deciding factor.

Additionally, Prevent Breast Cancer, of which the duchess became a patron last year, declared that it was severing its relationship with her.

She joined forces with the charity following her own experience with breast cancer in 2023, but a spokeswoman confirmed she was no longer a patron and thanked her for her work.

Food allergy charity The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation also announced it had dropped the duchess as a patron, with the founders saying they were ‘disturbed’ to read her correspondence with Epstein.

The charity, which was established after teenager Natasha Ednan-Laperouse died from a severe allergic reaction to eating a baguette, asked the duchess to become a patron when it was founded in 2019.

In a statement, founders Nadim and Tanya Ednan-Laperouse said, ‘We were disturbed to read of Sarah, Duchess of York’s correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein.

‘Sarah Ferguson has not been actively involved with the charity for some years.

‘She was a patron, but in the light of the recent revelations, we have taken the decision that it would be inappropriate for her to continue to be associated with the charity.’

A spokeswoman for the British Heart Foundation thanked the duchess for her ‘support for our work’ and for ‘her past efforts to help us save and improve lives by funding pioneering research into cardiovascular disease’, as the charity also cut ties with her.

The Sun newspaper reported that the duchess ‘humbly apologised’ to Epstein for linking him to paedophilia in the media, describing him as ‘steadfast’ and ‘generous’.

Her spokesman said it was sent ‘in the context of advice the duchess was given to try to assuage Epstein and his threats’.

The email originated from an interview with the Evening Standard on March 7, 2011, in which she apologised for accepting £15,000 from the sex offender.

During the interview, she told the newspaper, ‘I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children and know that this was a gigantic error of judgement on my behalf. I am just so contrite I cannot say.

‘Whenever I can, I will repay the money and have nothing ever to do with Jeffrey Epstein ever again.’

A little over a month afterwards, the duchess sent a message to Epstein, in which she said, ‘I know you feel hellaciously let down by me.

‘And I must humbly apologise to you and your heart for that.

‘You have always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family.’

It continued, ‘I was advised in no uncertain terms to have nothing to do with you and to not speak or email you.

‘And if I did – I would cause more problems to you, the Duke and myself. I was broken and lost.

‘So please understand. I didn’t want to hurt Andrew one more time. I was in overriding fear. I am sorry.’

The duchess’s spokesman previously said she had spoken of her regret about her association with Epstein and ‘does not resile’ from condemning him publicly.

He added that Epstein had threatened to sue her for defamation for associating him with paedophilia.

Epstein was discovered lifeless in his cell at a federal jail in Manhattan, in the US, in August 2019, while he awaited trial on sex-trafficking charges.

It was determined to be a suicide.

The royal family are only interested in ensuring their own positions within it. That’s why Andrew refuses to vacate the home that he lives in or stay in the background.

This is why William doesn’t want to be photographed standing next to Andrew in case his public image is tarnished, and having eventually taken his place as king, Charles doesn’t want anyone rocking the boat and therefore endeavours to keep everyone happy.

This is a problematic one. Loyalty equals ‘You know too much’, which is a really bad situation for Charles because if he cuts them off someone will definitely blab, and he will also lose his family.

School Accused Of ‘Brainwashing’ Children

A parent has accused a secondary school of ‘brainwashing’ after he discovered 14-year-old pupils were told to read a book that ‘blames them for their white skin’.

James Farquharson claims pupils were being fed ‘partisan political views’ after the novel The Hate U Give was added to the Year 10 reading list at Budmouth Academy in Weymouth, Dorset.

The 53-year-old said the book was making some students feel guilty about being white and left his daughter ’embarrassed and uncomfortable’ after she was told to read it out loud.

He has also accused the school of double standards, as it has a zero-tolerance stance on swearing, yet the book is littered with four-letter obscenities, including the F-word replicated 89 times.

The US novel, which has since been removed from the school’s reading list, follows an African-American girl who speaks out after witnessing a white police officer shoot her childhood friend.

Mr Farquharson said he has also questioned the appropriateness of another book that was being read out loud by children aged 12.

He said the book, called Pigeon English, explores sexual themes, including female masturbation, and is so ‘creepy’ it raised safeguarding concerns for the children reading it.

The books are part of the Drop Everything and Read (DEAR) initiative, which aims to encourage people to read for a short period every day.

Mr Farquharson has now sent a letter to Budmouth Academy’s headteacher requesting an immediate review of the books on the school’s reading list.

He said it is not about banning books but about giving students access to books that are appropriate for their age.

He said, ‘I found out about this last week when my 14-year-old daughter said she and her peers were having to read (The Hate U Give) out loud.

‘She felt embarrassed and uncomfortable about it.

‘I looked through it and read the first 150 pages and thought, “Really?”‘.

‘It is full of bad language, it normalises sex and drugs, and it is centred on identity politics, namely race, which blames her for her white skin.

‘It is divisive and is centred on issues of Blackness and whiteness.

‘The school shouldn’t be addressing political issues with students unless they are going to balance it with the counterarguments.

‘It is neo-Marxism being slipped into our children’s minds, not by outright political lectures but via fiction.

‘It is being incubated in their minds that there are goodies and baddies who, in this case, are the white kids.’

Addressing the book Pigeon English, which his Year 8 daughter is reading, he said, ‘It contains themes and language that one would hope 12-year-old kids wouldn’t be taught in school.

‘A 12-year-old reading out passages about female masturbation is a massive safeguarding red flag.’

Mr Farquharson, a media and communications manager, said other parents at the school have also raised concerns and complaints about the reading material.

Parent Vicki Burgoyne posted: ‘Why are we making our future generations read such tripe?

‘We need to educate and broaden their minds, not shrink them with street slang and brain-dead literature to shock them.

‘Why are we trying to shock kids by giving them such things to think about? It’s really sad. No wonder child mental health, self-harm, and suicide are at an all-time high if this is what’s filling their heads.’

The Hate U Give is a critically acclaimed coming-of-age novel by American author Angie Thomas.

It addresses racism and stereotypes surrounding Black youths and the protection of white communities.

However, not everyone opposes its teaching in schools.

One parent posted on social media: ‘This has been part of the school curriculum for a number of years now.

‘Rather than being offended by it (which is understandable), some consideration also needs to be given to what it’s trying to challenge and how it wants to provoke thought processes.

‘This is nothing new in this line of literature.

‘If taught correctly, this book is a powerful tool to provoke deeper analysis and understanding of the issues that arise in pop culture today.’

A spokesperson for Budmouth Academy told the Daily Mail: ‘Following a review of our Year 10 reading list, we have taken the decision to remove The Hate U Give. 

‘We acknowledge that the novel raises important themes and is promoted as appropriate for readers that are aged 14+. 

‘However, after careful consideration, we have decided that there are alternative texts that raise similar themes which are better suited to our students in Year 10.

‘A second book, Pigeon English, is under review but is likely to remain on the curriculum, as it is a prescribed text for GCSE English Literature by the exam boards.’

Our children will grow up to be just as stupid as they are if we don’t keep them away from schools like these.

Our children are being brainwashed by schools, which are unfit for their intended function.

Generally speaking, state education employees are self-righteous and left-wing.

Left-wing progressive ideology should be banned in schools. Schools are a place for education, not indoctrination, but it appears that the Marxist unions are after the fertile minds of our children.

This anti-white racism and subtle depravity masquerading as sex education needs to stop. No wonder twenty-five per cent of the population is now illiterate in the UK. We now have political activists instead of teachers in our classrooms.

No Jews Allowed In Shop As Sign Reads ‘Just Can’t Stand You’

At least four police complaints have been filed against the shop owner, who claims he “is not a Nazi”.

Jewish people have been barred from entering a shop in Germany by its pro-Palestine owner. Hans Velten Reisch, 60, put a small note in his store’s window on Wednesday, which read: “Jews are banned from here! Nothing personal. No antisemitism. Just can’t stand you.” The owner, who claims he is “not a Nazi”, has since had numerous police reports lodged against him.

Local authorities were made aware of the antisemitic sign on Wednesday evening.

Police spokesman Philipp Renoncourt told local media that it was removed “to prevent danger”. However, local residents claim that it has not been taken down but instead moved to a wall inside the shop. By Thursday morning, the windows of the shop had “Nazis out” written across them following the outrage the sign sparked throughout the town of Flensburg.

The town’s mayor, Fabian Geyer, responded to the incident: “This is a reminder of the darkest chapters of Germany’s history and has absolutely no place in the city.”

He said the sign was “a clear statement against Jews in our society”.

Kianusch Stender, Member of the State Parliament for the Social Democratic Party of Germany, added: “We are an open, colourful city that has a duty, based on its historical responsibility alone, to take a stand against anti-Semitism everywhere and at all times.”

Felix Klein, the Federal Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Antisemitism, highlighted the direct connections with the Nazi years, saying it is a “clear case of antisemitism”.

“We must intervene,” he told Welt TV. “This must not be tolerated in any way.”

Flensburg police confirmed that they had received four complaints against the shop owner. A spokesman said, “These are now being examined by the public prosecutor’s office for possible offences.”

Mr Reisch has since denied accusations that he is a Nazi or an extremist. The shop owner told the Fordé news media outlet that he is “a little to the left, a little to the right – but not radical,” adding, “I am not a Nazi.”

“I’m not inciting hatred; I’m just saying what I think,” he said. The shop owner criticised Germany’s policy towards Israel, explaining that he had stopped serving customers who he believed were supporting the war in Gaza.

He added, “I don’t need people like that here, neither in business nor in private.”

I don’t suppose it will be long before this man goes out of business.

I find all of this very sad, and undoubtedly, lessons have not been learnt from the Holocaust, and history is gradually repeating itself once again, and those Jews who came from the camps were tormented by their experiences for the rest of their lives.

My great-grandmother came from Romania and was fortunate enough to escape the pogroms but also lived through World War I and World War II – she died when she was 99 years old, so I was lucky enough to know her and understand what she must have had to go through.

I was born in Britain, and I was once proud to call myself British, but not so much now, although I wouldn’t leave the country that I was born in; however, I have never felt so afraid as I do now.

Refusing to do business with someone simply because of their religion, race, or political beliefs isn’t personal preference; it’s discrimination!

If you refuse to do business with people you don’t like, then you simply shouldn’t be in business.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started