A young British man walked out of a Manchester shop with a brand new baseball bat still sealed in its factory plastic packaging. Within moments, multiple police officers were on him, treating the purchase as a weapon and detaining him in full view of the street.

The footage, which spread rapidly on Sunday, captures the absolute state of policing in modern Britain. Officers challenge the lad, physical contact follows, backup including motorbike units arrives, and he ends up in a police van.

The bat’s plastic covering remains clearly visible throughout. No claim has emerged that he brandished it, threatened anyone, or used it for anything other than carrying it home after a legitimate purchase.

Meanwhile in Manchester 🇬🇧

A British lad just bought a brand new baseball bat from a shop and is POUNCED upon by MULTIPLE police officers immediately after leaving the store.

The officers accuse him of “carrying a weapon” even though the bat was clearly brand new and just… pic.twitter.com/FNZGRQnYy5

— BRITAIN IS BROKEN 🇬🇧 (@BROKENBRITAIN0) August 9, 2026

Under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, officers can stop and check items that could be used as offensive weapons in public if there is no clear reasonable excuse. A brand-new bat still in its shop packaging, purchased moments earlier, is the definition of a reasonable excuse for any ordinary person. Yet the response was immediate and multi-officer.

This incident does not stand alone. It fits a documented pattern that has played out repeatedly under the current climate of policing.

In early July, footage from Birmingham showed a white teenager who had just been attacked by a group of black males. A female officer moved in, shielded the aggressors, and directed force at the victim.

Multiple officers then swarmed the white lad, used foul language including “You’re going to walk to the car you fucking dick,” forced him into a police car the wrong way, and dragged him back out.

A bystander trying to explain that the white teenager was the victim was ignored. The attackers left without consequence. West Midlands Police were reported to have discouraged further sharing of the footage rather than addressing the conduct on camera.

Read the full article

by Andrew Korybko

What’s altogether most important in this thought exercise, which resembles the scenario implied by top Russian expert Vasily Kashin in late May, is that Russia keeps pace in the arms race and that its people remain resilient.

Former Russian President and incumbent Deputy Chair of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev declared in late July that “Our common task is to preserve our country. The only way to preserve our country is victory in the special military operation.” Victory has been officially described by the authorities from Putin on down as demilitarizing Ukraine, denazifying it, restoring the country’s constitutional neutrality, and having Kiev officially recognize the loss of five regions in full.

Maximum victory would be the best way to ensure Russia’s comprehensive national interests, but even in the scenario that the aforesaid goals aren’t all achieved by the time that the conflict ends per a speculative cost-benefit calculation by Putin, Russia would likely still survive. This scenario can’t be ruled due to the Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently reaffirming his country’s commitment to the “Spirit of Anchorage” in which Putin would reportedly cease hostilities if Trump gets Zelensky to cede Donbass.

The West’s (specifically the US’ and France’s) new Ukrainian-fronted “war of attrition” against Russia, which also targets civilian logistical infrastructure and is due to Trump “escalating to de-escalate” with Russia, could also change Putin’s calculations if it radically intensifies. The aforesaid factors are being shared not to imply that Russia should compromise on its pursuit of maximum victory, just to highlight why it might, thus leading to the thought exercise inspired by Medvedev’s remark.

In the event that Ukraine remains militarized, isn’t denazified, doesn’t restore its constitutional neutrality, and/or refuses to officially recognize the loss of five regions in full by the time that the conflict ends, then Russia would likely still survive for the reasons that’ll now be briefly enumerated. In the order that they were mentioned, Ukraine’s continued militarization would prompt Russia to keep pace just like NATO’s (and especially Germany’s) continued militarization would too, thus perpetuating their arms race.

Post-“Maidan” Ukraine’s preservation as a Nazi state would compel Russia to redouble its pre-bunking, media literacy, and “Democratic Security” policies and continue fine-tuning its interethnic one to defend against the ideational threats that this would pose. Merging the cultures of the military and society like former top Russian spy Andrey Bezrukov earlier suggested would help too. The threat posed by Ukraine’s lack of neutrality, meanwhile, could be countered by Russia’s Sarmat ICBMs to deter NATO deployments.

And finally, the humanitarian consequences of Kiev maintaining control over part of the disputed territories could be reduced by a third party-mediated deal allowing interested residents to migrate to Russia, but even the lack thereof would have no existential consequences for Russia. What’s altogether most important in this thought exercise, which resembles the scenario implied by top Russian expert Vasily Kashin in late May, is that Russia keeps pace in the arms race and that its people remain resilient.

Even if Russia achieved maximum victory, the US has already built a loose “cordon sanitaire” around it in the Arctic-Baltic through UK-led efforts, Central Europe through Polish-led efforts, along Russia’s entire southern periphery through Turkish-led efforts, and in Northeast Asia through Japanese-led efforts. This poses a panoply of threats beyond the scope of the present analysis to detail, but which lend credence to Bezrukov’s warning that Russia might be embroiled in its “new war” with the West for decades.

Geoffrey comments

This reminds me of my and Eva’s visit to Suva, Fiji a few years ago when we gave a taxi driver $US 50 for a one hour tour. Going down a hill there was a truck behind us and he said ‘I’d better pull over and let him pass in case the truck’s brakes fail’. It’s clearly a problem there.

It’s all 20 for us.

from a reader

The New IRA just dropped a nuclear-level threat on the Irish authorities:

Remove EVERY SINGLE migrant from Ireland… or we start a full-scale CIVIL WAR.

These men are not joking.
They’re not posturing.
They’re not playing around.
The dissident republicans who still know how to fight have drawn a line in blood. One wrong move and the streets will burn.
Ireland is sitting on a powder keg — and the New IRA just lit the fuse.
This is no longer politics. This is war talk.

by Pee Kay

The Trial that could re-shape New Zealand’s future and why the Ngai Tahu case threatens NZ democracy!

There will be many people around New Zealand awaiting a hugely significant High Court judgment in the Tau v Attorney-General action, expected before the November 7th election. This case has the potential to spark significant political anxiety, conflict and certain Maori action regarding freshwater rights.

The case concerns Te Maire Tau’s argument that Ngai Tahu never ceded authority over freshwater and they are seeking a co-governance regime rather than mere compensation. I have no doubt they are actually mean “co-governance… for now!”

From the Crown, it maintains that water rights were vested in the state. The ruling on this “Ngai Tahu never ceded authority over freshwater” and its subsequent Maori customary authority will be legally and politically significant and whatever the verdict, it will trigger immediate appeals.

This is Three Waters via the back door and is going to be a politically charged and significant issue prior to our November election.

The case was heard by Justice Melanie Harland who is regarded as an experienced High Court judge and environmental law specialist. With significant expertise in resource management, she is regarded as a pragmatic judge recognized for her balanced, highly technical approach to complex statutory disputes.

This is no ordinary court case where a tribal group is “having a go at the government,” oh no. This case is far more than a routine dispute between a tribe and the Crown. The long-term implications of this trial could reshape New Zealand’s political and environmental landscape!

Even though Justice Harland openly noted that there was “merit in the Crown’s argument” regarding the complex statutory limitations on freshwater declarations, surely the government must be planning for the eventuality of a Ngai Tahu win?

For Chris Luxon, the clock is ticking and the pressure must be immense. His response to a judgment in favour of Ngai Tahu could very well dictate whether he is still prime minister post November 7th!

Voters who opposed the previous government’s Three Waters agenda will look to Luxon to stand firm on the principle of equal, democratic governance over essential public assets. A resolute commitment he made in 2023! This will be a major test of his leadership and his priorities. Will his government aggressively appeal any ruling that dilutes Crown ownership of water, or will his response signal a passive alignment with the broader Maori aspirations for sovereignty by 2040, as outlined in documents like He Puapua.

“Sweating bullets” might just be an understatement.

But the worry over the outcome of this legal action should not only be confined to our Prime Minister; every New Zealand citizen who holds equality close and democracy dear should be very uneasy! 

The outcome has the potential to be a direct threat to the foundational principle of equality in New Zealand. If Ngai Tahu succeeds, we will see a catastrophic domino effect. This action on behalf of Ngai Tahu, which was actually heard in the Christchurch court in early 2025, can only be interpreted as an orchestrated strategy by Maori leaders as a giant step to their full sovereignty claims by 2040.

The legal battle over water is not isolated to Ngai Tahu and nor is it limited to freshwater. This is a highly coordinated, nationwide, multi-front strategy, designed and implemented by Maori leaders (I can’t help but wonder how much influence and assistance from Chris Finlayson). The broader legal campaign unfolding across New Zealand actually extends much further, directly targeting the ownership and control of geothermal resources as well.

A Hawkes Bay tribal group “Tatau Tatau o Te Wairoa” coincidentally lodged their claim with the High Court in March 2025. Tatau Tatau o Te Wairoa claim they are “taking legal action to protect the freshwater that has sustained our whānau for generations. This case supports Ngāi Tahu’s efforts to ensure the Crown recognises iwi and hapū rights over rivers and lakes, crucial to our lives and culture.” Notably Lake Waikaremoana is included in this claim.

But it’s not only Tatau Tatau o Te Wairoa. Several other major tribal and large Maori collectives have filed parallel legal actions against the Crown regarding freshwater rights.

The country’s third-largest tribe, Ngati Kahungunu, have formally joined forces with Ngai Tahu in their High Court proceedings.

Then there is the massive national coalition, Wai Mana Whenua National Coalition who represent over 60 Maori Land Trusts, tribes and sub tribes. They have also filed a landmark parallel lawsuit against the Government in the High Court.

This group represents more than 150,000 Maori landowners across the North Island. Their lawsuit, and this is interesting given my recent articles “National…the enemy within”,  focuses on enforcing a “solemn promise” made in a 2012 High Court affidavit by then Deputy Prime Minister Sir Bill English, who legally acknowledged that “Maori possess explicit rights and interests in freshwater and geothermal resources.”

I’ll say that again – Deputy Prime Minister Sir Bill English, who legally acknowledged that “Māori possess explicit rights and interests in freshwater and geothermal resources.” 

Wai Mana Whenua National Coalition argue the Crown has spent over a decade breaking that promise by locking Māori out of water allocation.

If Maori are authorised to establish a co-governance (for now) regime over South Island fresh waters a legal precedent will be set that will inevitably see the nation’s entire freshwater supply carved up and transferred into tribal hands!

Let’s break this down to winners and losers in this legal battle.

Obviously Maori leadership, the Iwi Chairs Forum, the Waitangi tribunal and even Ngai Tahu’s well paid legal mouthpiece Chris Finlayson all have skin in the game and expect a huge outcome.

But as I mentioned earlier, there are many sectors of our community nervously awaiting the outcome.

Behind many closed boardroom, committee meeting room and dining room doors, a diverse and anxious range of stakeholders will be watching the High Court with absolute intensity, fully aware that a Ngai Tahu victory will fundamentally disrupt their interests to a lesser or much larger degree.

First among these I suspect will be the multi billion dollar hydroelectric power generators. Some of whom have already felt the greedy hand of Ngai Tahi in their back pocket. Meridian Energy, Contact Energy, and Mercury  rely entirely on unimpeded access to rivers and central North Island geothermal fields to supply our national grid. Imagine the turmoil brought about by the division of management, profits, dividends and, more importantly for Joe Public, will there be payment/cost/pricing based on ethnicity?

Then there would be the manufacturing giants, massive operations like Fonterra and major regional meat and wool processors such as Silver Fern Farms, Affco or Alliance Group who require millions of litres of clean water for processing, hygiene, and cooling systems. Major infrastructure mainstays like New Zealand Steel (which consumes substantial water for cooling and processing) must closely watch precedents regarding Crown control versus customary resource rights.

And how do you think international corporations planning huge data centres view a change of ownership of our water?

The commercial water-bottling companies which draw massive volumes of water daily from underground aquifers for international export. Those enterprises will face immediate vulnerability regarding the security of their long term water allocations.

Federated Farmers and other farm lobby groups are going to be highly alarmed, concerned that a Maori victory would, most likely, disrupt existing water consents when they were due for renewal, commercial irrigation of arable crops could face restrictions, fees and burden farmers to navigate mandatory and arguably redundant and completely superfluous, cultural impact assessments.

Regulatory bodies like local councils & regional authorities face the reality of having their statutory planning powers diluted or completely overhauled under a mandatory co-governance model. A shift to a co-governance or even a “co-management” regime will directly alter statutory powers of these bodies.

And lastly, there is us, everyday New Zealanders, the general public, the recreational users of our waterways, we too have a, not too dissimilar to Maori and their ancestral use, long and hardy investment in how any new ownership of freshwater might impact our access to rivers, lakes, and waterways!

Water is a universal necessity and it is not a commodity to be divided along ethnic lines. To yield control of New Zealand’s most vital public asset to tribal interests is to trigger a dangerous constitutional crisis. A crisis that actively dismantles the democratic rights of everyday New Zealanders and strips them of an equal say in their own country’s future.

If Ngai Tahu win their case, it won’t just alter a resource allocation; it will permanently fracture our legal system into a two-tier regime and shred any hope that New Zealand harboured of, once again, becoming a unified nation!

I certainly do not envy Justice Melanie Harland. The weight of New Zealand’s future could actually rest on her shoulders

from a reader

From my research, I have found the following pieces/steps that should avoid the possibility of being poisoned by the NZ Government/police — if one gets stopped and forced to do the roadside oral fluid screening test.

From the Land Transport Regulations legislation 2025 Section 2(d) shown below:

Land Transport (Oral Fluid Samples) Regulations 2025

At Wellington this 10th day of November 2025

4 Procedure for enforcement officer obtaining oral fluid sample

(1) An enforcement officer must follow the procedure specified in subclause (2) in the following circumstances:

(a) when obtaining an elective oral fluid sample for the purpose of section 71DC(2) (b) of the Act:

(b) when obtaining an oral fluid sample for the purpose of section 71DE(2) (b) of the Act.

(2) The enforcement officer must—

(a) check that the packaging of the oral fluid collection kit is not damaged and that any expiry date has not passed; and

(b) discard the oral fluid collection kit if any damage to the packaging is apparent or if any expiry date has passed; and

(c) check that the contents of the oral fluid collection kit are not damaged and discard the oral fluid collection kit if any damage is apparent; and

(d) GIVE the person the oral fluid sample collection pad and explain to them how to use it; and

(e) after the person has used the oral fluid sample collection pad, collect it from the person; and

(f) check that, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, sufficient oral fluid has been obtained for the purpose of section 71DC(2) (b) or 71DE(2) (b) of the Act, as applicable.

Section 2(d) GIVE the person the oral fluid sample collection pad, the key phrase is “GIVE the person.” The legislation does not say “the officer or the driver will swipe the Pathtech Pty Ltd Securetec DrugWipe® 3 S code S304G.91 stick on the driver’s tongue. The driver only has to provide “an oral fluid sample” that is transferred to the oral fluid sample collection pad – and then give the stick to the officer. The workaround is how to get your saliva to the 3 small sponges at the end of the stick with out direct contact to the stick. See attached pictures.

This $2 rice spoon from The local Two Dollar shop, is the right size & shape to hold a good amount of spit without making a mess.

So the suggested procedure is:

1) Take the stick from the officer with your right hand (don’t let the officer swipe your tongue)

2) Pick up the nearby rice spoon sitting on the vehicle’s seat with your left hand and do a big spit into it while the officer watches

3) Dip the end of the stick into the spit in the rice spoon turning the dry pink sponges to a yellow moist state

4) Give the used stick back to the officer showing him the yellow moist pads – so he can do the test.

5) You have complied with the legislation — you did not refuse to give a sample or do the test.

Attached also is the manufacturers instructions/recommendations on how to use the stick. Step 7 states: Hand the blue sample collector to your donor. Then it says “WIPE on the 3 sample pads. However, the NZ legislation wording should/must override the manufactures instructions/suggested guidance.

From the Land Transport Act 1998 section 60A — Failure or refusal to undergo oral fluid screening test or provide oral fluid sample. It appears that as long as the driver provides the oral fluid sample (to be tested), that this is all the legislation is requiring. How the oral fluid sample (spit) gets on the stick is not specified, so using the rice spoon as the transfer device should be acceptable to the officers – even though their training will be to directly swipe the driver’s tongue with the stick (so they can potentially poison you).The legislation wording should override/stand up to any protests by the officers.

After going through the suggested procedure, please share & run it by any legal, informed or connected people (cops, politicians, other lawyers, etc) and see it there is merit in this workaround.

from Rebel News

What happened after tens of thousands of African migrants illegally crossed the border into Spain?

Were they arrested? Identified? Detained? Deported?

That’s the question we sent our reporter Alexa Lavoie to Ceuta to investigate — and the answers she found are incredible.

Alexa found migrants living in the mountains, sleeping on beaches and walking freely around the city. Some told Alexa that authorities hadn’t even taken their names, passports or any identifying information at all.

Then Alexa asked members of Spain’s Guardia Civil what happens to people who entered illegally.

They couldn’t tell her when — or even if — everyone would be deported.

And that’s when the situation at the border itself got even stranger.

Probably 100 in front of the foliage and another 200 stretching back along the road for 600 metres.