Emily Shepherd
@emi.ly
Rabid Linux & Kubernetes fan girl. IPv6 advocate. Serial opinion haver.
Technical Consultant @redcoat.dev. Building a next generation managed-Kubernetes PaaS.
🔐 E4BE 06C4 3A99 7EC4
Technical Consultant @redcoat.dev. Building a next generation managed-Kubernetes PaaS.
🔐 E4BE 06C4 3A99 7EC4
"It's difficult, difficult, lemon difficult".
November 28, 2025 at 1:04 PM
"It's difficult, difficult, lemon difficult".
Have I completely missed this news or has it not been reported much?
A UN Special Rapporteur has intervened on the Palestine Action proscription Judicial Review.
A UN Special Rapporteur has intervened on the Palestine Action proscription Judicial Review.
November 27, 2025 at 6:08 PM
Have I completely missed this news or has it not been reported much?
A UN Special Rapporteur has intervened on the Palestine Action proscription Judicial Review.
A UN Special Rapporteur has intervened on the Palestine Action proscription Judicial Review.
Holy shit. This from the OBR Executive Summary is devastating.
November 26, 2025 at 1:05 PM
Holy shit. This from the OBR Executive Summary is devastating.
Interestingly, this does appear to be a new choice. An older episode does not have these additions...
November 25, 2025 at 6:45 PM
Interestingly, this does appear to be a new choice. An older episode does not have these additions...
I'm sorry, but when did #BBCLauraK start doing this?
The BBC logo slapped onto the Palace of Westminster - our nation's Parliament - and the face of Big Ben replaced with a "K" for Kuenssberg.
Bit on the nose, isn't it?
The BBC logo slapped onto the Palace of Westminster - our nation's Parliament - and the face of Big Ben replaced with a "K" for Kuenssberg.
Bit on the nose, isn't it?
November 25, 2025 at 6:45 PM
I'm sorry, but when did #BBCLauraK start doing this?
The BBC logo slapped onto the Palace of Westminster - our nation's Parliament - and the face of Big Ben replaced with a "K" for Kuenssberg.
Bit on the nose, isn't it?
The BBC logo slapped onto the Palace of Westminster - our nation's Parliament - and the face of Big Ben replaced with a "K" for Kuenssberg.
Bit on the nose, isn't it?
It was the ruling too.
Paragraph 221 explains that it can be proportionate to ban both trans men from both the male facilities, because they are assigned female at birth, AND female facilities, because they now present as male.
The Supreme Court's logic could also apply to trans women.
Paragraph 221 explains that it can be proportionate to ban both trans men from both the male facilities, because they are assigned female at birth, AND female facilities, because they now present as male.
The Supreme Court's logic could also apply to trans women.
November 13, 2025 at 8:12 PM
It was the ruling too.
Paragraph 221 explains that it can be proportionate to ban both trans men from both the male facilities, because they are assigned female at birth, AND female facilities, because they now present as male.
The Supreme Court's logic could also apply to trans women.
Paragraph 221 explains that it can be proportionate to ban both trans men from both the male facilities, because they are assigned female at birth, AND female facilities, because they now present as male.
The Supreme Court's logic could also apply to trans women.
Go on, BBC, tell us their blood type too why don't you, you bigotted reprobates.
November 2, 2025 at 1:06 PM
Go on, BBC, tell us their blood type too why don't you, you bigotted reprobates.
Why is @eddavey.libdems.org.uk like this?
What do the @libdems.org.uk actually stand for these days? Genuinely can't figure it out any more.
What do the @libdems.org.uk actually stand for these days? Genuinely can't figure it out any more.
October 18, 2025 at 7:45 PM
Why is @eddavey.libdems.org.uk like this?
What do the @libdems.org.uk actually stand for these days? Genuinely can't figure it out any more.
What do the @libdems.org.uk actually stand for these days? Genuinely can't figure it out any more.
In response to these stark warnings, the Government has doubled down, and the Home Secretary has already dismissed the letters as "undermining the case for the UK to stay in the ECHR".
October 15, 2025 at 8:48 AM
In response to these stark warnings, the Government has doubled down, and the Home Secretary has already dismissed the letters as "undermining the case for the UK to stay in the ECHR".
Guardian headline writers be like...
October 14, 2025 at 12:36 PM
Guardian headline writers be like...
English is a rip-off degree, says woman who can't spell "Britain".
October 8, 2025 at 12:21 PM
English is a rip-off degree, says woman who can't spell "Britain".
I am incredibly proud of this.
October 4, 2025 at 2:08 PM
I am incredibly proud of this.
This shit is cartoonishly evil.
How can we host these carnivals of death and despair and still call ourselves ethical beings?
How can we host these carnivals of death and despair and still call ourselves ethical beings?
September 25, 2025 at 12:01 PM
This shit is cartoonishly evil.
How can we host these carnivals of death and despair and still call ourselves ethical beings?
How can we host these carnivals of death and despair and still call ourselves ethical beings?
Great website. Everyone should run a mile from these people.
September 24, 2025 at 1:34 PM
Great website. Everyone should run a mile from these people.
In order to make a connection to the Three Arrows symbol, one would have to seemingly arbitrarily ignore the first two of these arrows & then rotate the remaining three.
This isn't journalism. It's conspiracy theory quackery.
The BBC should issue a retraction & an apology for this absurdity.
/5
This isn't journalism. It's conspiracy theory quackery.
The BBC should issue a retraction & an apology for this absurdity.
/5
September 13, 2025 at 6:45 PM
In order to make a connection to the Three Arrows symbol, one would have to seemingly arbitrarily ignore the first two of these arrows & then rotate the remaining three.
This isn't journalism. It's conspiracy theory quackery.
The BBC should issue a retraction & an apology for this absurdity.
/5
This isn't journalism. It's conspiracy theory quackery.
The BBC should issue a retraction & an apology for this absurdity.
/5
As the BBC acknowledge, however, there weren't three arrows on the casing, but five.
And none of them were diagonal.
Instead, we have "up, right and three down arrows".
/4
And none of them were diagonal.
Instead, we have "up, right and three down arrows".
/4
September 13, 2025 at 6:45 PM
As the BBC acknowledge, however, there weren't three arrows on the casing, but five.
And none of them were diagonal.
Instead, we have "up, right and three down arrows".
/4
And none of them were diagonal.
Instead, we have "up, right and three down arrows".
/4
"The three down arrows alone could be a common symbol used to represent the anti-fascist movement."
I suspect the symbol they are referring to is the "Three Arrows".
It is a common anti-fascist symbol featuring three diagonal arrows. It is often shown in a circle, but not always.
/2
I suspect the symbol they are referring to is the "Three Arrows".
It is a common anti-fascist symbol featuring three diagonal arrows. It is often shown in a circle, but not always.
/2
September 13, 2025 at 6:43 PM
"The three down arrows alone could be a common symbol used to represent the anti-fascist movement."
I suspect the symbol they are referring to is the "Three Arrows".
It is a common anti-fascist symbol featuring three diagonal arrows. It is often shown in a circle, but not always.
/2
I suspect the symbol they are referring to is the "Three Arrows".
It is a common anti-fascist symbol featuring three diagonal arrows. It is often shown in a circle, but not always.
/2
The BBC should be utterly ashamed of this reporting.
In their coverage of the Charlie Kirk developments, they have authoritatively stated that the casings "included references to the Antifa, or the anti-fascist, movement".
This coverage is not only absurd, it is highly damaging.
A 🧵 /1
In their coverage of the Charlie Kirk developments, they have authoritatively stated that the casings "included references to the Antifa, or the anti-fascist, movement".
This coverage is not only absurd, it is highly damaging.
A 🧵 /1
September 13, 2025 at 6:38 PM
The BBC should be utterly ashamed of this reporting.
In their coverage of the Charlie Kirk developments, they have authoritatively stated that the casings "included references to the Antifa, or the anti-fascist, movement".
This coverage is not only absurd, it is highly damaging.
A 🧵 /1
In their coverage of the Charlie Kirk developments, they have authoritatively stated that the casings "included references to the Antifa, or the anti-fascist, movement".
This coverage is not only absurd, it is highly damaging.
A 🧵 /1
I watched the protest, across multiple independent streams, all day yesterday & I saw none of this.
I'm not saying it couldn't have happened off camera, but that certainly wasn't the overall vibe that I witnessed. There was a lot of shouting & chanting.
Don't let the Met misrepresent the day.
I'm not saying it couldn't have happened off camera, but that certainly wasn't the overall vibe that I witnessed. There was a lot of shouting & chanting.
Don't let the Met misrepresent the day.
September 7, 2025 at 11:04 AM
I watched the protest, across multiple independent streams, all day yesterday & I saw none of this.
I'm not saying it couldn't have happened off camera, but that certainly wasn't the overall vibe that I witnessed. There was a lot of shouting & chanting.
Don't let the Met misrepresent the day.
I'm not saying it couldn't have happened off camera, but that certainly wasn't the overall vibe that I witnessed. There was a lot of shouting & chanting.
Don't let the Met misrepresent the day.
No comment. For obvious reasons!
August 19, 2025 at 2:49 PM
No comment. For obvious reasons!
To be clear I don't agree that the law should be the way it is, but the Terrorism Act 2000 is crazy broad.
Holding a sign is indeed an offence under the Act.
Holding a sign is indeed an offence under the Act.
![A snippet from the Terrorism Act 2000:
"Uniform [F1and publication of images].
(1)A person in a public place commits an offence if he—
(a)wears an item of clothing, or
(b)wears, carries or displays an article,
in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
[F2(1A)A person commits an offence if the person publishes an image of—
(a)an item of clothing, or
(b)any other article,
in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
(1B)In subsection (1A) the reference to an image is a reference to a still or moving image (produced by any means).]
F3(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
(b)a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(c)both"](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:en7czkhogfoggztn3newgk3u/bafkreig25mgoavbf4yfs7z5y7xaidowfj6xgsuvqsr534oyjvqwgceetqa@jpeg)
August 9, 2025 at 5:46 PM
To be clear I don't agree that the law should be the way it is, but the Terrorism Act 2000 is crazy broad.
Holding a sign is indeed an offence under the Act.
Holding a sign is indeed an offence under the Act.
Stop brainwashing our kids! 😭
July 31, 2025 at 11:25 AM
Stop brainwashing our kids! 😭
Looks like NHS Fife cross examined and called it out as bullshit hearsay.
July 29, 2025 at 12:59 PM
Looks like NHS Fife cross examined and called it out as bullshit hearsay.