Politics
‘Fisking’ Yasmin Alibhia-Brown on Margaret Thatcher
Back in the 2000s many bloggers used the art of ‘Fisking’ as a way of explaining why a MSM newspaper columnist was wrong. The term emerged in the early 2000s blogosphere and is named after Robert Fisk, a well-known Middle East correspondent for The Independent. Bloggers began doing line-by-line critiques of his articles, quoting passages and then responding to each point. Someone started calling that practice “Fisking,” and the name stuck. Anyway, today I am going to revive the art by critiquing a column from the I Newspaper written by my good friend Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Yasmin and I have been friends for the best part of 25 years, despite the fact we agree on absolutely nothing.
This week, she wrote a column defenestrating the reputation of Margaret Thatcher, who I wrote a biography of last year. I’ve always known Yasmin loathed Thatcher, but I was a little disappointed when she declined an invitation to the book’s launch party last year. My book was far from a hagiography and many people on the Left of politics have told me how much they enjoyed it and that they learned a lot from it.
There is a lot of deliberate blinkeredness when it comes to Margaret Thatcher. There are few shades of grey, as Yasmin’s article this week shows. Instead of actually studying the evidence, prejudice against her masks any intention to see the other side of the argument. This is, to be fair, not unique to Yasmin. I may be regarded by many as one of the keepers of the Thatcher flame. But I am not blind to the fact that in her 11 and a half years as prime minister, she made errors. I mean, who wouldn’t?
I find it asbolsutley fascinating that the psyche of the Left is hell bent on blaming Thatcher for most of the ills afflicting Britain today. She left office 35 years ago, for goodness sake! You have to be 57 to have voted for (or against) her!
So when Yasmin describes her as ‘pitiless’ and the person ‘who broke Britain’, I shake my head in disbelief, not least because she’s buying into the Farage narrative that Britain is actually wholly broken. There are aspects of our country that are indeed broken – our politics, for example, and our public discourse. She can’t be blamed for either of those things, given that one of the reasons for the breakdown in discourse is social media. When she left office, no one had even heard of a thing called “The Internet”.
Anyway, on with the Fisking. My comments are in bold and italics.
Yasmin begins…
I saw Margaret Thatcher in the flesh for the first and last time on 31 January, 2008. It was at a grand Guild Hall dinner celebrating “Great Britons”. Artists, pop stars, Olympians, CEOs, politicians, and financiers mingled graciously. Thatcher, dressed to the nines and then 82, was getting a lifetime achievement award. Ecstatic, beatific faces lit up as she stood up. For her devotees she is Brittania, a saviour of the nation, whose trident and shield symbolised her indomitability.
Personally, I have despised Thatcher since January 1978.
‘Despised’ is a very strong word. It’s the kind of word which if I, as a man, would use against a female left wing politician, I would be held to account for. But this is typical. Dislike isn’t a strong enough word for the Left when it comes to Margaret Thatcher. It has to be more hateful.
Just hours after I had given birth to my son, she declared that people were afraid Britain might be “swamped by people with a different culture”.
I agree these words were clumsy and open to misinterpretation, but she wasn’t wrong, was she? These fears are far worse today. In the late 1970s the National Front was on the rise. She killed it off. It is a fact that when Thatcher was in power, she controlled immigration and the NF disappeared. No words of gratitude from Yasmin on that front.
In her glory years, my animosity intensified as her fundamentalist neoliberalism and punitive policies ripped the fabric of our society. But, escorted to the stage by David Cameron, she seemed frail and vulnerable. I felt a pang of pity. Which she would have hated.
Very true. The worst thing that can happen to a politician is when people pity them or feel sorry for them.
Because she never had any, for the weak, helpless, or needy.
Simply not true. There are countless examples (many detailed in my book MEMORIES OF MARGARET THATCHER) of her displaying acts of personal kindness to people in distress or less well off than herself. Having said that, especially in her early years she played up to her reputation as an Iron Lady, so unless you were prepared to look beneath the surface, it was easy to see her as hard hearted.
Her time in office was defined by arrogance and certitudes, self-belief and recklessness.
This falls into trap of gross generalisation. Name me a successful politician who has never displayed arrogance. This was certainly more evident in her final two years in office, that much I accept and make the same point in my book. Certitudes? She certainly appeared totally sure of herself and her policies, but as Charles Moore reveals in his magnificent biography, there were many moments of doubt and self-doubt. But of course Yasmin won’t have read Moore’s books, preferring instead to rely on her gut instinct, rather than the fully researched facts.
Margaret Thatcher broke Britain.
Er no, she didn’t. If anyone broke Britain in that era it was the trade unions through strikes, Spanish practices and utterly unsustainable pay claims.
The destruction was meticulously planned. The resulting follies, dust, scraps and shards are all still around us.
Easy, prejudiced words to write, but not backed up by the facts, as evidence by the fact that Yasmin doesn’t give any.
As are the get-rich predators who gorged on the deregulated capitalist system and underfunded welfare state.
A bit insulting to the millions of ordinary people who took advantage of the opportunity to become shareholders for the first time. What she calls ‘te deregulated capitalist system’, I would describe as an enterprise economy designed to encourage entrepreneurs to build businesses in an economy which rewarded risk takers, and thereby created economic growth. A concept alien to many on the Left, who seem to forget that it is the tax receipts from the wealthmakers who fund the welfare state.
There is an alternative view. Iain Dale, the conservative journalist and broadcaster, and author of a new biography of the former prime minister, told me: “Margaret Thatcher restored a sense of national pride and renewal after decades of decline. She transformed an economy beset by strikes and inefficient nationalised industries into one which embraced enterprise and entrepreneurship, something which this Government should learn from. There have been only three transformational prime ministers since 1945. [Clement] Attlee, Thatcher and [Tony] Blair. She was a signpost, not a weathervane.”
I do agree that she was steady and consistent and didn’t blow with the wind. Unlike, say, Keir Starmer who U-turns giddily. And several recent Tory leaders who were more flighty than flinty.
Actually, her reputation for not doing U-turns is not as factual as she might like. There are plenty of examples of her bending to her critics.
The public view of her is not what you might think. At the time of her resignation in November 1990, the majority view was that her government had been good for the country, though three in five people said they disliked her. But time passed. Those negative feelings subsided. Eleven years on, in another poll, more people said they found her more inspirational than Blair or the Pope, behind only Nelson Mandela and Richard Branson.
Enthusiasts today include Labour heavyweights. Starmer has praised the iron lady for seeking to drag Britain “out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism”. In 2024, Rachel Reeves, claimed her generation of women had been inspired by Thatcher. And David Lammy pronounced her “a visionary leader for the UK”. Who needs friends when you have such lovely foes?
Was the last comment really necessary? Margaret Thatcher broke a glass ceiling for women, so any woman would surely recognise the importance of that. My eight year old niece said to me in 1987: “Uncle Iain, can a man be prime minister?” That was the extent of her impact.
Though it was massively discomfiting, I did include Margaret Thatcher in my book, Ladies Who Punch, about females who reshaped the UK. I had to. She was the first elected female leader in the UK and Europe. As Meryl Streep, who played her in a biopic, acknowledged: “To have come up, legitimately, through the ranks of the British political system, class-bound and gender-phobic as it was… was a formidable achievement.” And her feminine, magnetic forcefield awed many, including France’s François Mitterrand who famously declared, “She had the eyes of Caligula and the mouth of Marilyn Monroe”. But writing the chapter only rekindled my anti-Thatcher passions. I blame her for the state we’re in.
Of course you do. Right, let’s get into the serious rebuttal.
On this charge sheet I consider six items. There are more. First, the privatisation project. That did, admittedly, lead to modernisation and increased efficiency in the telecom industries.
Thank the Lord for small mercies for that small piece of recognition. But it wasn’t just BT. It was ABP, Britoil, National Freight, British Airways, Amersham International. British Airports Authority, British Aerospace, BNFL, British Waterways, Cable & Wireless… I could go on, but you get the picture. No one would suggest renationalising any of these privatisations.
But in most other sectors it was a disaster. Remember what that did to the railways.
Er, Margaret Thatcher never touched the railways. In fact, she rejected railway privatisation. It was John Major who privatised the railways. Furthermore, the Thatcher government doubled the rate of subsidies to the railways in the 1980s to the 1970s. That’s what she did to the railways.
And water. Many years of neglect and profiteering since has caused the avoidable pollution of our waterways. This is a real problem now. Two weeks ago, 30,000 people in Sussex and Kent had no water for almost a week. South East Water, the company responsible, issued the same old apologies and excuses.
This is far more complicated that Yasmin seems to think. The water industry was privatised primarily because the state could no longer afford to pay for the investment needed to update a Victorian system of waterpipes and sewers. The only way they could be repaired was to accept private sector investment. In the first decade of privatisation this worked like a dream. It was only when companies like the Australian banl McQuarrie started buying up water companies that things changed and the asset stripping and profiteering began. The Blair government could easily have given the regulator OFWAT new powers to stop what was happening in plain sight, but chose not to. As did the coalition and ensuing Conservative governments. This was a major failing of public policy, but it wasn’t privatisation that was the issue, it was the system of regulation.
Starmer has called the situation “totally unacceptable” and wants the water regulator Ofwat to review the company’s
licence. Yawn. Nothing can be done because the original deals conspicuously favoured the buyers and made it hard to hold them accountable. Energy companies are not dissimilar. Our money is going into the deep pockets of investors who can never have enough.
This is not capitalism as we once knew it. Before Thatcher, all political parties were committed to a balanced economy in which the NHS worked, industry and commerce thrived, and people had proper jobs, as well as affordable homes. National pride was built on real foundations – not imagined superiority.
Talk about looking back on the 1960s and 1970s through rose tinted glasses. There was no “balanced economy”. Mass unemployment was masked by industries which were only still in existence due to mass taxpayer funded subsidies, and many of them (Steel, coal, motor) had been driven into the ground by strikes, work to rule and general industrial blackmail. And to balance that, weak management let it all happen, both in the public and private sectors.
Second, the social housing shortage. The sale of council houses to tenants was a pivotal Thatcher strategy which created a whole new strata of homeowners and a swell of Tory supporting working-class voters. A good number of the purchased properties were then offloaded by the buyers at market prices. Fair enough, you might think. But these homes were part of the nation’s resources for people in need. Local authorities were effectively forbidden from replacing the stock. And so social housing shortages became an unsolvable crisis.
The sale of council houses was one of the greatest achievements of the Thatcher government, and even today, there are many thousands of families who remain grateful to her for the opportunity to own their own homes. Yes, it was a mistake not to allow new social housing to be built, and there is indeed a long-term overhang from this. But 35 years on, it remains a fact that Labour had 13 years in government to reverse this. And that government built fewer council houses than ever.
That too was intentional. Today’s frustrated homeseekers never impugn the architects of the current crisis. They blame migrants or each other when they should blame Thatcher.
Had we not had such high levels of immigration in recent years, and had we not had government that failed to build the infrastructure to cope with the extra numbers, things might be different. But that cannot be laid at the door of Margaret Thatcher, or at least most of it can’t.
Third, workers’ rights. Thatcher’s war on unions was relentless. Right-wing media outlets were her mercenaries. Union action was described as the “British disease”.
Miners had gone on strike in 1972 and 1974, and got what they demanded. Thatcher became the Tory leader and won the 1979 election. The miners’ strike between 1984 and 1985 gave her the opportunity to crush upstart trade unions and demonstrate her indomitability. Arthur Scargill, leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, cared about the workers, but did not call a national ballot which would have conferred legitimacy on the strike. That was tactically injudicious. The strikers were violently suppressed. And impoverished. It was a dark chapter in British history.
Well that gave me a good laugh. Arthur Scargill “cared about the workers”. What a risible thing to say. The only thing Scargill cared about was using his members to overthrow the Thatcher government. His failure to call a national ballot was not just “tactically injudicious”, it divided his own workers down the middle. Let’s also remember that it wasn’t Thatcher who closed the most pits because they were uneconomic. It was Harold Wilson. In the 11 years of the Wilson and then Wilson/Callaghan governments 285 pits were closed. Between 1979 and 1984 the Thatcher government closed 47 pits. During the 11 years of the Thatcher government, 120 pits were closed. I rest my case.
In 1984, Orgreave, a mining town near Sheffield, experienced some of the worst clashes ever in British industrial history. Picketers were charged with riot and disorder – crimes punishable by life imprisonment. Evidence given by the police was deemed unreliable and the trials collapsed. An inquiry is continuing today.
Some past union bureaucrats overreached their roles and created chaos. That was self-defeating. They gave union-bashing media outlets the opportunity to turn public opinion against unionised workers. Thankfully, a new generation of union leaders – Mick Lynch, for example, and Sharon Graham of Unite – have regained respect. But union membership is still low. Zero-hour contracts, food banks and depleted towns are Thatcher’s legacies.
Fact. There were no foodbanks in Thatcher’s Britain. They started under Blair in 2000, ten years after Thatcher left office. Zero hours contracts didn’t really exist under Margaret Thatcher. They started becoming increasingly used in the 2000s under the then Labour government, but only 0.6% of employees were on them. In 2025 that figure had risen to 3 per cent. Yet from the way the Left talk, you’d imagine most people were on them. And let’s remember, many people like them because of their flexibility – students, single mothers, carers. And as for depleted towns? I am trying to fathom why the state of our high streets in 2025 is down to Margaret Thatcher. I still can’t work that one out.
Fourth, we can add the brutal curtailment of manufacturing sector – once the mainstay of the country. That was economic and societal vandalism. The collective spirit of factory workers of all backgrounds was shattered. They became poorer, more segregated.
Again, a myth. As I have argued above, some of these heavy industries were masters of their own decline. In 1979 we were the 6th or 7th largest manufacturing country in the world. In 1990 we were the 7th or 8th, so declining one place in the league table. Most people think we have plummeted since then, but this is not true. We remain the 11th largest manufacturing nation in the world by both output and value, but we have been overtaken by South Korea, Mexico and Brazil. We are one place below France.
Expansive social bonds were anathema to this PM. Remember her words: “Too many children and people have been given to understand, ‘I have a problem, it is the government’s job to cope with it!’, or, ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’, ‘I am homeless, the government must house me!’, and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing. There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves”.
At least Yasmin has the decency to give the full quote. And in doing so demonstrates that Margaret Thatcher had a very good point, which has been utterly warped by her critics.
On to the fifth indictment. Progressive movements for equality and justice were besieged by Thatcher and her devotees. LGBT+ rights have now been mainstreamed. But in 1988, Section 28 in the Local Government Act banned the “promotion of homosexuality”.
“Besieged”, eh? Again, that gave me a good laugh. All Yasmin can do is quote one example to prove a massive allegation. I make no defence of Section 28, but Charles Moore argues in his biography that Thatcher was never personally in favour of it, but felt she owed a favour to its proponent, Dame Jill Knight. Perhaps Yasmin didn’t know that Margaret Thatcher was one of a handful of Tory MPs to vote for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967.
Sixth, white nationalism. Thatcher’s exaltation of Britain’s imperial history was a ploy and a cover. It knowingly excluded Brits of colour with roots in the old colonies and duped patriots. For example, in September 1988, in a speech in Bruges, she said this: “From our perspective today surely what strikes us most is our common experience. For instance, the story of how Europeans explored and colonised — and yes, without apology — civilised much of the world is an extraordinary tale of talent, skill and courage.” Such evocations thrilled nostalgic natives. Distracted by Rule Britannia fantasies, they didn’t notice the country’s assets were being gobbled up by foreign-owned companies.
Oh dear. This is just a reiteration of the Left wing narrative that the British Empire was all bad and there was nothing positive about it at all. Yasmin’s phrase ‘white nationalism’ says it all. One of her first foreign policy achievements was the Lancaster House agreement bringing black majority rule to Zimbabwe. She allowed Lord Carrington to get on with it, but the achievement was in great part hers. Yasmin will deny this to her dying day, but in my book I detail how Margaret Thatcher was pivotal in helping bring about an end to Apartheid. It’s the one chapter I really wish Yasmin would read. Nelson Mandela also thanked her for assisting in his release, something Yasmin will presumably never acknowledge because it doesn’t suit the narrative.
In 1989, the late Hugo Young, an astute political observer wrote One of Us, a deeply researched biography of Thatcher, her upbringing, her domestic life, her mind, her prejudices, her insights and obstinacies, her successes and failures. It ends with these lines: “She had done so much. She was the scourge, the aversion therapist, the creative counterforce. But the nation remained the same nation. She succeeded in the end because she was not one of us. And she went for the same reason.”
Several close colleagues concluded she had to go, because she had alienated too many. While her acolytes mourned her departure, others felt, as do I, that our first female PM had damaged too many people and broke the nation she claimed to love. Under her, the United Kingdom felt disunited and unequal, its peoples hopelessly divided.
This conclusion is seen through the prism of equality being the be all and end all, which it undoubtedly is for those on the Left. For those of us on the right, equality of opportunity is far more important than equality of outcome. And there can be no doubt that she offered millions of people huge opportunities.
This is not an academic exercise looking at the distant past. An honest reckoning with the Thatcher era is necessary if the country is to be restored and renewed. Will the Labour Government find the courage to do that? Can it free us from her legacy and open up the future?
An honest reckoning is indeed, what is called for. I think I achieved that in my book, but I am afraid Yasmin does not achieve that in her article. Those with closed minds on a particular issue rarely can.
But Yasmin, I still love you and you’re aq great, loyal friend!
You can buy my biography of Margaret Thatcher HERE.
Afroman has won his legal battle after Ohio police attempted to sue him for defamation.
In 2022, Ohio police broke down Afroman’s door as part of a drug and kidnapping investigation. The raid did not lead to any charges.
Hilariously, he then released an album in 2023, titled Lemon Pound Cake. It was a piss-take of the CCTV footage captured from his house during the raid.
The deputies lawsuit came right after and requested $3.9m (£2.9m) damages for:
humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment and loss of reputation.
However, the officers stole money, broke down his door, and trashed his house. It should have been Afroman suing them.
Afroman — because he got high
One song took aim at an officer who stopped mid raid to eye up a lemon pound cake on his kitchen counter. The song says the officer:
got the munchies because he got high.
Another was titled “Will you help me repair my door”, and needs no explanation. So far, it has over 11 million views.
During the trial, the Afroman said:
he had a constitutional right to make artistic and critical content about government officials.
His lawyer added that public officials:
could not use the courts to silence criticism simply because it hurt their feelings.
His lawyer also asked if any reasonable person would think a man wearing a flag suit in court “should be taken seriously”.
If you haven’t been following this, Afroman’s lawyers have also had some incredible moments — including asking if any reasonable person would think that a man wearing a flag suit in court should be taken seriously https://t.co/fb9R7EOja6
— Tracy Alloway (@tracyalloway) March 19, 2026
Afromans’ only defence witness during the trial was the ex-wife of one of the deputies.
Imagine that.
Playing the victim
Another deputy broke down in court — after trashing his house and stealing his money. Meanwhile, Afroman was vibing to his tune.
Officer Lisa broke down in court when they played the diss track about her. The camera cut to Afroman, and he’s just vibing to his song.
America is not a real place. https://t.co/Fq9hc7lrkr pic.twitter.com/DNPL1NCaKT
— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) March 19, 2026
The lyrics of one track read:
Randy Walters son of a bitch /That’s why I f–ked his wife and got filthy rich
But in court, Randy Walters testified that he “wasn’t sure” if his wife was fucking afroman.
Having a cop testify under oath that he isn’t sure if his wife is fucking Afroman is a level of fucking with the police previously unknown. https://t.co/8WM6kbHfSv
— Kristi Yamaguccimane (@TheWapplehouse) March 18, 2026
He caused himself more humiliation than Afroman could have dreamed of, and we’re here for it.
This has been the only light in a very dark month of news. https://t.co/rUrDWL1qIE
— Amity (@amitylee13) March 20, 2026
The more you look into this the more hilarious it gets.
Not only are the songs making fun of the cops, but during the trial he said he made them to pay for the damages the cops did to his house.
One of the songs is about the officer’s wife asking him to sign her titties. 🤣 https://t.co/KjcMjArKEy pic.twitter.com/b4tM215bWp
— Walter Curt (@wcdispatch) March 19, 2026
I bet the Ohio police force didn’t think their trial would turn into a free promo for Afromans album. That one really backfired.
But at least Ohio is finally on the map…
Feature image via ogafroman/ YouTube
DES MOINES — Rob Sand got a hero’s welcome at a state deer hunting expo at the Iowa Events Center on a recent March weekend.
The state’s lone Democratic statewide elected official, and Democrats’ hope for flipping the governor’s mansion for the first time in 16 years, could barely make it through the Sunday morning sea of camo-wearing, venison jerky-chomping, Busch Light tallboy-nursing fellow hunters as more than a dozen people stopped and congratulated him.
But it wasn’t because of his politics. If anything, it was in spite of them.
“Rob, heckuva buck!” said one passerby.
Sand was at the annual Iowa Deer Classic to enter a Green gross-scoring 209-inch buck he’d tagged earlier this season. Photos of the deer have proliferated on Trophy Bucks of Iowa and other Facebook hunting groups across the state.
“Mr. 200!” said Levi Schmitz, a Trump-voting Republican who nonetheless plans to back Sand.
“You got me,” the 43-year-old state auditor responded with a grin.
As Democrats across the map continue to hunt for paths out of the metaphorical wilderness, Sand is betting that his own path to the governor’s mansion runs through his familiarity in the literal wilderness.
Sand represents the kind of candidate Democrats have long sought to win on tough red terrain: an inarguably of-the-place contender whose persona and bio can help sell political views that have become a tough pitch in places where many hear “Democrat” and picture coastal elites. Iowa, a swing state through 2012, moved hard right in the Trump years as Democrats increasingly struggled to connect.
Here, Republicans have taken advantage of the culture wars in a big way for years. Retiring Sen. Joni Ernst first won in 2014 by running hard on her pig-farming, military vet bio and painting her attorney opponent as an effete outsider.
Sand doesn’t run from some of his more liberal views. But like many other Democrats running this year, he’s banking that his local cultural cred will make him tougher for Republicans to caricature as a not-like-us coastal outsider.The day the expo kicked off, the avid bow hunter and fisherman’s campaign launched a “Hunting With Rob” microsite that extolls the rugged Iowa way of life. “For the first time in Iowa history, hunters, sportsmen, conservationists, and outdoor enthusiasts alike will finally have an ally in the governor’s office,” it reads.
In a state where the first day of deer season is an unofficial holiday, Sand’s strategy to center his culturally midwestern hobby rather than his Democratic brand was on full display. He dropped $30 on a glove for removing burrs, $35 on a tool that keeps hunting bows level and $69 on MAXX Step Aiders for climbing trees. And the branding appeared to be working.
“I’m super-Republican, but you got my vote,” said Tom Buckroyd, a hunter from a small community near Marshalltown wearing a “Crossbows Are Gay” T-shirt who spent roughly 20 minutes talking to Sand about hunting.
As he picked at a free sample of barbecue venison jerky on a toothpick, Sand said he wasn’t surprised by his warm reception.
“Number one, it just means I shot a huge buck this year,” he told POLITICO. “But number two, I go back to culture. And we have this stupid, broken, two-choice political system. … And we are told stories about who can be right in either party. And when you find someone that’s in a party, but then also doesn’t fit that story, I think for a lot of people that is a sign of realness or a sign of authenticity about who they are.”
Since their bruising losses in 2024, Democrats have tried all manner of ways to rehabilitate their brand, from cursing more to growing beards to talking about sports. This cycle, they’ve redoubled their efforts to find authentically local candidates — and in some races, those candidates have emerged and caught lightning as they challenge status-quo Democratic candidates. Many are leaning hard into local culture signals.
Sand has hunting. Maine’s Senate candidate Graham Platner has his oystering and his Second Amendment creds. Texas’ Bobby Pulido has his guitar; James Talarico has the Good Book. Alaska’s Mary Peltola has fish. Democratic candidates who can win in tough places often get national buzz. And Sand happens to be from a state that — at least for now — still plays an outsized role in the presidential process. Could Sand be a surprise 2028 contender?
“If Rob wins, he will instantly be part of that conversation,” said Tommy Vietor, President Barack Obama’s former Iowa press secretary and a host of Pod Save America.
Sand is running as a hunting-loving, churchgoing, Casey’s gas station pizza-loving state auditor who has spent the past five years positioning himself as a fiscally responsible friend to the Iowa taxpayer.
There’s been little public polling of the race; the only public survey, released back in October, found Sand beating GOP Rep. Randy Feenstra by two points, 45 percent to 43 percent. But national operatives in both parties see it as one of a handful of governor’s races that could flip. Sand is unopposed in the state’s June 2 primary, though five Republicans will be on the ballot for their party’s nomination.
He entered the show room at the EMC Expo Center after attending a chapel service for expo-goers where he quietly scrolled a Contemporary English Version of the Bible on his phone, listening dutifully to the sermon about Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000. “What sort of kingdom work is He asking you to do?” the pastor asked
And what does Sand see as his kingdom work? “Talking about the evils of the two-choice system and trying to break down a system that inherently divides us and leads our leaders into the temptation of being lazy, and leads our leaders into the temptation of lying, bearing false witness against their opponents, because they know that they don’t actually have to solve our problems,” he said.
“In order to get reelected, all they got to do is convince us that they’re the lesser of two evils,” Sand continued. “And they win because we only have two realistic options on the ballot — and that entire system, to me, is just such a temptation to not serve people, to not do good, to actively lie, to spread false information.”
You’d be forgiven if you forgot Sand was running as a Democrat. That, of course, is part of the point of his campaign. Sometimes to salvage the Democratic brand in a red state you have to first savage it.
But Republicans will be sure to remind voters a few times between now and November.
“He hasn’t really had to take very many positions,” said David Kochel, a longtime Iowa Republican operative who has guided multiple presidential campaigns. ”He’s going to be forced at some point to either disavow the Democratic Party platform, which is going to piss off progressives, or he’s going to have to accept the label of being a Democrat in Iowa and defend it. And it’s gonna be hard for him to do.”
Republicans will paint some images of Sand of their own. As much as he would like to cut the figure of a rugged outdoorsman, they say, he also spent some time in college modeling in Milan and Paris — photos that may well pop up in GOP ads. “I mean, it was a part-time job I had in college,” Sand said. “Catching chickens was my first one.” Catching chickens? “Castrated male chickens,” he clarifies.
There is also the matter of his election financing: His wealthy in-laws have dumped $7 million into his campaign. “Hardworking Iowans know the value of a dollar, and don’t have the luxury of having a silver spoon feeding them their career,” Iowa Republican Chairman Jeff Kaufmann said in a statement.
Iowa Republicans are taking Sand’s candidacy seriously. In an interview, Bob Vander Plaats, the influential West Des Moines evangelical leader, called Sand “dangerous” and the “best candidate” Democrats could run.
“He’s trying to come off as a more folksy, more accomplished Tim Walz. ‘I go to church every Sunday. I hunt. I’m the taxpayers’ watchdog. I’m gonna hit all the Republican talking points, basically, that I can,’” Vander Plaats said before stressing that Sand “would be way outside of where Iowans are.”
On the Republican side, Vander Plaats endorsed Adam Steen over Rep. Randy Feenstra, the GOP establishment pick and primary frontrunner. “I just haven’t been impressed with Randy’s campaign. I don’t think he has the campaign to win a general election.”
Sand practices a judge-not-lest-ye-be-judge approach with would-be voters. When he was speaking to the man wearing a “Crossbows Are Gay” shirt, Sand didn’t bat an eye.
“I know what that shirt says, but I’m not going to assume that he literally is anti-homosexual because his T-shirt says that,” Sand said. “I’m not a believer that lecturing people is an effective way to get them to not do a thing. Now, I’m open about my support for gay marriage, for the gay community. He’s probably seen me say that. … And he’s not going to hear me back away from that. So to me, there’s probably room for someone to wear a shirt that they mean as a joke they don’t actually mean to be negative.”
Sand didn’t win the Big Buck contest he’d entered. But as he took selfies with the men who had beat him, an onlooker from Exira named Jeremy brought up a possible consolation prize.
“You’re the next governor of Iowa!” he told Sand.
As the day wrapped, the lanky state auditor pulled his buck head down off the wall and, carrying it by an antler, walked out of the convention center — its taxidermied eyes fixed in a frozen stare at Sand’s potential new voters.
The Earthquake Faction has set fire to Elbit’s Israeli weapons manufacturing centre in the Czech Republic.
The blaze marks the launch of the group.
BREAKING: ‘The Earthquake Faction’ launches by setting ablaze Elbit’s Israeli weapons manufacturing centre in the Czech Republic.
The site was built to “service the global expansion of Israel’s biggest weapons producer”.
No one was harmed, but photos show the site destroyed. pic.twitter.com/uU31RdFQUZ
— The Aftershock (@The_Aftershock_) March 20, 2026
The group said:
the site was built to service the global expansion of Israel’s biggest weapons producer.
The group did not harm anyone, which is a thought far too implausible for the Western elite to even imagine.
However, images from the site suggest that the fire destroyed it.
Photos showing extensive damage from the action were shared on the group’s telegram channel: https://t.co/XF4dbqlGvJ pic.twitter.com/2OWcvQo1zX
— The Aftershock (@The_Aftershock_) March 20, 2026
In true Western colonial fashion, Czech authorities are investigating it as a “possible terrorist attack” after the group claimed responsibility and linked it to the war in Gaza.
Because anyone standing up against Genocide and murdering innocent people is a terrorist, whilst the global superpowers dropping the bombs are completely innocent?
Cue the worldwide proscription of Earthquake Faction in 3, 2, 1…
Czech govt is already calling this a terror attack.
Not a single person was hurt nor did the group aim to hurt people. Their stated goal was to “quash their means to kill”. To save lives not take them.
Following the UK govt’s lead.
Welcome to the era of nonviolent terrorism. https://t.co/8L9NF6iqSE— Vivian (@MxVivianWulf) March 21, 2026
But this is the ridiculous example that the British government has set. Vandalise equipment used to murder innocent brown people, and you’re on a terrorist watch list.
Arming genocide
According to Who Profits:
Elbit Systems Ltd. is an Israeli defense company engaged in the development and production of weapons and combat systems for land, air and sea combat forces, in the fields of electronics, electro-optics, artillery, aviation, lasers and more.
The company is Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer and has a tightly knit relationship with the Israeli security apparatus for which it provides a wide range of services and develops extensive weapon technology, equipment and platforms deployed in varying fields.
As the Canary previously reported, Elbit Systems is Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, which markets its products as “battle-tested” on the Palestinian people. They provide 85% of Israel’s military drone fleet and land-based equipment, as well as bullets, missiles, and digital warfare.
Elbit’s Israel-based CEO, Bezhalel Machlis, who also sits on the board of Elbit Systems UK, explained how the company has “ramped up production” to meet the demand of the Israeli military’s genocidal campaign in Gaza and across the wider region.
The International Court of Justice has ruled it’s plausible Israel is committing genocide – and Elbit is arming that genocide.
Elbit Switzerland
Activists have also vandalised the offices of Elbit Systems in Bern, Switzerland.
Sent in to me for publishing:
“At 8pm local time on March 20 the Elbit Systems Switzerland office in Bern, Switzerland has been vandalized.
Elbit needs to close” pic.twitter.com/1GYni2oVHZ
— maia arson crimew🐈🐾🏴 (@awawawhoami) March 20, 2026
The same Elbit that is running UK government contracts, supplying the Swiss government with reconnaissance drones, and delivering an advanced SPYDER air defence system to the Czech Republic.
All three countries are complicit in Elbit’s war crimes.
I don’t see why you’d go and smash up some-
Ah, I see, never mind have a great day pic.twitter.com/n9QCjounRu— Tubbymcwubby (@Tubbymcwub) March 20, 2026
How does Elbit feel now that one of its factories resembles Gaza? Your own medicine doesn’t taste so nice, does it?
Does international law exist, or does it not? Because when the war crimes being livestreamed on phones are completely unchallenged, it seems that maybe it doesn’t.
Elected officials stand and watch while their pals carpet bomb innocent people. Yet they cry “terrorist” when people take direct action, and it messes up their other pals’ profits.
Ordinary people should be allowed to resist the genocide that their governments are actively involved in. Because let’s face it, the majority of our governments will not. If we’re not allowed to resist genocide, then what the fuck can we do?
And as Stokely Carmichael said:
In order for non-violence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.
Feature image via the Earthquake Faction
Keir Starmer is allowing the US to use UK military bases to bomb Iran. This is an explicit deviation from his line that they should be used only for “defensive purposes”.
Specifically, Starmer has said that UK bases can be used to
strike Iranian sites targeting Strait of Hormuz
His previous comments meant that the US could only use UK bases for actions that would stop Iran from firing missiles that put British interests or lives at risk.
However, despite this, we have still repeatedly seen photos and videos on social media showing large bombs being loaded into US warplanes, on UK soil.
So Starmer may only be publicly changing his mind now, but it appears that US forces were already doing it.
The BBC have decided to report on a thing that’s been happening for two weeks https://t.co/YSA1cmiBvC
— Nate Bear (@NateB_Panic) March 20, 2026
Starmer — war criminal
Human rights groups are warning that the UK allowing the US to use its military bases could violate international law.
Yasmine Ahmed, Human Rights Watch UK director, has demanded “urgent clarification” from the government to ensure that US military strikes conducted from its bases are “compliant with international humanitarian law”.
But how can any strikes in a war that started due to Israel and the US’s unprovoked attacks possibly be “compliant with international law”?
There have been more international law violations in the last three weeks than even Ai Neyanyahu has fingers to count.
International law only works if everyone abides by it.
Starmer is proving over and over that he is a war criminal.
I truly hope Starmer will one day be tried and jailed for his complicity in countless war crimes. https://t.co/84FRFoV6sq
— Red Collective (@RedCollectiveUK) March 20, 2026
You’d have thought a former prosecutor might have reflected on the lessons from the illegal Iraq war.
This war isn’t about nukes, it’s about power. Trump‑Netanyahu’s moves against Iran ignore international law. Global energy suffers, ordinary people pay, while big powers play dangerous games. #EndTheWar #USIsraelExposed #IranWar https://t.co/FFHR9UWQZT
— Lenin Ravi (@leninravi) March 20, 2026
Especially when neither parliament nor the British public have voted on the country going to war.
Britain should block the US from using our bases
British people want no part in this illegal war! https://t.co/F7Sz4XsfL3
— Manchester Green Party 🐝 (@McrGreenParty) March 21, 2026
Consequences
Like usual, British households will pay the price for the government’s inability to engage their brains and face the consequences of their actions.
Keir Starmer is taking Britain into an illegal war AGAINST the wishes of the majority of British people
And putting us in danger
Starmer is a disgrace https://t.co/MxBEGqhoqr
— Stop The Bollocks with Mirabel (@MirabelTweets1) March 20, 2026
No discussion.
No vote.
No accountability.Call it what it is: escalating participation in an illegal war of aggression. https://t.co/sX0OCcnnMo
— Jonathan Bartley (@jon_bartley) March 20, 2026
Just as Starmer has participated in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, he is now also participating in murdering innocent Iranians.
We can count on Starmer playing the victim when Iran bombs UK bases.
Watch them spin it like they’ve done nothing wrong when Iran bombs UK bases https://t.co/ObjSybLpg1
— Leah Dionne (@leahdionne__) March 20, 2026
Iran warned him that anyone assisting Israel and the US’s illegal and unprovoked attacks would be fair game.
Similarly, it warned the world that it would retaliate for strikes on oil and natural gas facilities. It even issued evacuation orders, which is far more than the US or Israel did when they blew up Iran’s South Pars gas field.
Yet still, Starmer blames Iran and “condemns in the strongest terms“. Meanwhile, he allows the US and Israel to blow up Iran’s facilities.
So much for standing up to Trump. Starmer is a pussy. And he couldn’t be further up Trump and Netanyahu’s arses if he tried.
This is a universally un-fucking-popular war here. It’s a public easy win to simply not involve us in another war in the middle-east.
Instead, we are prioritising licking the boot of a foreign leader who is quite candid about doing this illegal war for his own oil gains. https://t.co/F2TlWMRZ4l
— Ryan T. Brown 🎮🩷 on holiday! 🌞 (@Toadsanime) March 20, 2026
Starmer is nothing but a Temu Tony Blair. But we have to ask why Labour love war so much? Supposedly, the party of the working class, yet more concerned with blowing up black and brown people in the Middle East than making sure British people can afford their energy bills. All while lying about their involvement.
Starmer’s blind allegiance to the US and Israel is dangerous and will make the UK a direct target for retaliatory attacks. But he can’t say no one warned him.
Feature image via HG
A pack of hounds from the Heythrop Hunt rampaged through a private garden and killed a fox on Wednesday 11 March 2026. Blood stains remained on a resident’s lawn in Condicote after approximately 30 hounds chased the terrified animal through the village.
Footage taken by Three Counties Hunt Saboteurs shows the pack running wild on driveways and through gardens in the scenic village. Hounds appear with blood on their coats whilst drinking from plant pots and buckets.
The hunt staff allegedly entered the property without permission to remove the poor creature’s body. Joint masters Ollie Dale and Vanessa Chanter were filmed attempting to remove a camerawoman from the garden. The hunt broke the garden fence during the altercation.
Another member of the hunt, Josh Tierney, was seen with bloodstains on his trousers after removing the body of the poor fox away from the crime scene. Whilst the homeowner allowed activists to film the site, the hunt forcibly escorted them out once the owner went inside.
Systematically wreaking havoc in the countryside
This incident is just part of a wider pattern of hunting-induced havoc across the UK. The League Against Cruel Sports recorded 1,117 reports of hunt havoc during the 2024/25 season. These reports include (PAGE 5):
- 319 incidents of trespass on private property.
- 423 incidents of out of control or lost hounds.
- 367 reports of road havoc caused by the hunt.
Rowan Hughes, a spokesperson for the Hunt Saboteurs Association said this shows why hunting needs a total ban. Hughes stated that hunts have no respect for private property and ‘shout trespass’ only when they are being exposed.
Broken fences, trashed properties, ruined lawns and injured animals are one side of the hunt that these ruthless riders are desperate to hide. The law is catching up with them, and public hostility toward the hunt has never been higher. At this critical moment, we must call them to account for every small infraction.
A history of the Heythrop Hunt controversy
The Heythrop Hunt are no strangers to controversy or press attention. In February 2026, Channel 4 News released footage of the hunt dumping dead chickens in woodlands. Activists claim this “feeding station” was used to lure foxes into areas so they can be hunted in the future. In the 24/25 season, monitors recorded 332 cases ((PAGE 8)) of hunt trespass nationally. So it isn’t just when these wankers are actively hunting, it’s also to lay the dirty groundwork to draw in their innocent prey.
The HSA reported that covert cameras captured the terrierman of the Heythrop Hunt. He was recorded dumping black bin-bags full of dead chickens between June and August 2025.
By October, the same cameras picked up the hunt pursuing the very foxes they had drawn in. This premeditated approach contradicts the claim that the hunts are simply following a pre-laid ‘trail. Unless these fucking dickheads are actively laying trails through peoples’ gardens, we can see the obvious lie.
Heythrop Hunt — Closing the trail hunting loopholes
Gloucestershire Police received a report of the kill but, as per usual, officers did not attend the scene. Police have not charged any members of the hunt at this stage.
In January 2025, this same hunt apologised after hounds ran through an industrial estate. The chairman previously told Bourton Parish Council that such incidents were “isolated”. But how can that be the case when once again we are seeing private property being used as the hunt’s personal playground?
Three Counties Hunt Sabs filmed this new footage after the Labour Party announced the plans to ban trail hunting. This reform was part of the Animal Welfare Strategy for England announcement on Monday 22 December 2025. A spokesperson for Three Counties Hunt Sabs noted that the kill happened whilst vixens are pregnant. And this is happening within half a mile of where staff dumped the chicken corpses.
The spokesperson urged the government to close the loopholes in the Hunting Act 2004. And urgently. This latest incident in Condicote suggests that trail hunting remains a smokescreen and is nothing but a thin veil to hide the hunt’s illegal activity.
The human cost of hunt trespass
The owner of the garden in Condicote was visibly shocked by the ruthless intrusion. He gave the hunt sabs permission to film the evidence before re-entering his property. Yet once the owner was out of sight, the hunt members used force against the activists. Despite them having no permission to be on the private land.
This lack of respect for residents is a common theme in rural communities. The League Against Cruel Sports reported that 76% of the public support strengthening the ban. Yet the current legislation allows hunts to claim they are following a scent trail. However, in a case like this when a fox is killed in a garden, that excuse becomes impossible to justify.
We reached out to Simon Russell, chair of the HSA who said:
“The current Hunting Act 2004 has so many holes, you could drive a van through it. Although Hunt Sabs have achieved more hunting convictions than any other organisation, the 99% of times we see illegal hunting, there is no chance of a conviction. The government needs to do a lot more than just ban trail hunting, which seems to be its only focus.”
So as the Labour Party moves towards a total ban, incidents like this should be increasing public pressure. The sight of blood-stained trousers and dead foxes in gardens is a stark reminder of the reality of a government and a police force that don’t give a fuck.
Featured Image via The Three Counties Hunt Sabs
Byline Times has linked the components used in the Tomahawk missiles which hit a girls’ school in Mibab, to two defence companies with a strong presence in the UK.
The US missiles murdered around 165 school girls on February 28 in a double-tap attack. The second missile killed sheltering survivors, two first responders, and the parent of a murdered child.
Tomahawk cruise missile
Byline Times has revealed that analysis by Action on Armed Violence, combined with US Government procurement data, strongly suggests that the British defence industry — namely BAE Systems and Raytheon — produced parts for the Tomahawk missiles used in these attacks.
At first, there was speculation about the origins of the missile used in the attack and who was responsible. However:
independent analysis of video, satellite imagery and debris has consistently identified the munition as a Tomahawk cruise missile, a system used by the United States and its allies in this conflict, and no credible source has contested the origin of the recovered fragments.
One of the recovered components is marked “SDL ANTENNA”. This is:
part of the satellite data link system that allows the missile to receive mid-flight guidance updates.
The markings on the part identify its manufacturer as Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. This is a US-based contractor. However, BAE Systems, a UK corporation, owns Ball Aerospace, having acquired it in February 2024.
The weapon fragment contains the code 13993, issued by the US Commercial and Government Entity. This code makes it clear that the company owned by British BAE Systems manufactured the missile’s satellite communications antenna.
Of course, detailed information on current subsystems is partly classified. However, there is no evidence of any recent changes to the UK’s supply of core components, such as those used in these strikes.
Byline Times added:
Since acquiring Ball Aerospace in 2024, BAE Systems has retained its capabilities in Radio frequency (RF) and phased-array (multiple antennas) technologies, making it likely that similar components remain in production under UK ownership.
It is often hard to attribute weapons components to a single strike, as Byline Times has done in this case. However, UK-linked components are a consistent feature of the Tomahawk system.
Additionally, the recovered fragment contains a contract number: N00019-14-C-0075.
According to Byline Times, US Naval Air Systems Command records show that Raytheon won this contract in 2014 to produce Tomahawk Block IV missiles, with “subsequent modifications expanding the order”.
This means that we can directly link the recovered component to that production programme.
The UK’s wider role
Byline Times has also seen wider procurement data that points to “continuity” in the UK’s role in the Tomahawk programme.
Around 4% of the production of the US Tactical Tomahawk programme is based in the UK — at Raytheon UK’s Glenrothes facility in Scotland. It manufactures “electronic and guidance components” for missiles.
According to Byline Times:
Raytheon UK received more than $15 million for its contribution to this production lot according to public financial records (contract N00019-14-C-0075). UK parliamentary records have also previously confirmed that components produced at the Glenrothes site are exported to the United States for integration into Tomahawk missiles, indicating a sustained role in the programme.
An unclassified US Selective Acquisition Report (SAR) also shows that the UK plays an official role in the Tactical Tomahawk programme.
It states:
The FY 2014 procurement includes 196 surface and subsurface launched AURs, 20 torpedo tube launched AURs as part of the United Kingdom Foreign Military Sales case, and 15 surface AURs (FY 2013 funded through Buy-to-Budget).
The UK government doesn’t usually disclose which British-made components are included in weapons used by allied forces, or how these systems are deployed. However, the US does provide detailed procurement data. This means we can trace which company produced specific components.
UK complicity in war crimes
Even before this latest revelation, the UK was already complicit in Israel and the US’s war crimes.
Previously, Keir Starmer claimed the UK was “playing no role” in the illegal attacks on Iran. Then he stated the UK was only taking part in “regional defensive operations”. Now, Starmer is allowing the US to load massive bombs into planes to bomb Iran.
And to make matters worse, it now turns out that the US and Israel are using weapons with British-made parts to blow up little school girls.
You’d have thought a former prosecutor might have had a hard red line when it comes to war crimes. But apparently not. Starmer has even more blood on his hands.
Feature image via HG
I have always prided myself on having a sixth sense for deception, an ability to spot the lie buried in the casual comment or the discrepancy in a story that exposed what someone is working to hide. I figured that’s what made me a great thriller writer.
In 16 books published over 25 years, I’d been constructing elaborate plots where people led double lives and hid horrible truths with both blatant lies and simple misdirection.
My protagonists were always law enforcement – inspectors and detectives, a medical examiner – sharp-eyed women trained to see through shiny veneers to notice the small inconsistencies that eventually cracked the case.
And yet, for two and a half years, I missed the most obvious plot twist of my life: my husband was having an affair with his massage therapist.
The irony isn’t lost on me. Somedays, the irony is suffocating.
It was a Friday afternoon in December 2022 when I found out. Our kids were home from college for the holidays, and our family was preparing to head to Mexico to join my sister and her family for a week of sun, sand and margaritas.
I discovered his affair not through any brilliant investigative work nor the careful attention to detail I so prided myself on. Instead, the discovery came from a charge on a credit card statement – a session with a couples counsellor we hadn’t seen in almost a decade – that caused an uncomfortable pit in my stomach.
I sometimes wonder whether the appearance of that pit meant that suspicion had been planted before then – whether there was a part of me, deep and buried, that sensed the rot beneath the carefully maintained façade.
When I reached out to my husband, his phone was turned off. For more than two hours, the pit grew as he remained unreachable and our adult children began to sense something was wrong. When his phone finally came back online, I confronted him with the charge and asked what was going on.
“I’m almost home. Let’s talk then,” he responded. So casual. So calm.
When he arrived, he asked if we could talk without the kids.
“What’s going on?” I demanded when we were alone. “I’m not in love with you anymore,” he said in the same tone you might mention the oil light has come on in the car.
“Who are you in love with?” I asked.
Love was energy; it didn’t just dissipate into the ether. It went somewhere else.
“There’s no one else,” he told me.
Courtesy of Danielle Girard
He acted normal for the next 24 hours. In weak imitation, the kids and I tried to act normal, too, to prepare for our trip and the small Christmas celebration we planned before leaving.
The following morning, Christmas Eve, we were set to depart for our vacation when I woke at 4am with the memory of something my husband said when our friends divorced: “A man never leaves his marriage unless there’s someone waiting for him.”
I roused him at 4:04am and asked again, “Who are you in love with?” When he didn’t answer, I started to guess. I got it in two. On the first guess, he protested loudly. On the second, he went silent.
“How long?” I asked. If I’d written the scene, I like to think I’d have been more creative, but creativity evaporated in the panic of that moment.
I shouldn’t have been surprised that he lied again. It took more than three weeks to get him to admit that the relationship had been going on for almost two and a half years. Three years later, there are details that never quite squared and lies that were never ironed out.
As a thriller writer, I’ve spent countless days imagining the worst things people can do to each other. I’ve sat in coffee shops and on airplanes and at my desk and invented murders, betrayals, psychological torture.
I’ve been inside the heads of liars and manipulators and people who destroy others without remorse. That experience made me believe I understood human darkness with a clarity others lack. But understanding it for the benefit of a story and living through it are entirely different things.
Courtesy of Danielle Girard
For days after I found out, I moved through my life like a stranger. Every object felt suspicious, every memory potentially false. Had he been thinking about her when we were in Nashville for my birthday the month before? Was he texting her from our bed when I was in the kitchen and setting up the coffee machine for the next day? How many times had he said “I love you” while mentally planning his next Friday massage appointment?
“Really? Your massage therapist?” I asked once, during one of those miserable circular conversations where nothing gets resolved and everything gets worse. “A 50-year-old man and his massage therapist. It’s so cliché.”
The comment clearly stung, as if I’d insulted his creativity rather than his fidelity.
“We were friends first. She listened to me,” he said.
“I listen to you,” I said like a petulant child.
“You’re in your office, working, or you’ve got your nose in a book for the podcast.”
He wasn’t entirely wrong.
Once our kids had left for college, I’d shifted my focus to my writing and working harder than ever as my career took off. I’d stopped working on the marriage. My shiny new toy was the book; his worked out the kinks in his neck, ones put there by 30 years with me.
That December, I was neck-deep in a manuscript about a detective investigating a pregnant surrogate who goes missing. It was a book I’d been so excited about six months earlier, one I’d been confident was my darkest, most psychologically complex book yet.
After I learned my husband’s secret, I couldn’t write a word.
Every time I sat down at my desk, I’d cry or stare at the blank page, wondering why I bothered. What did these pretend murders matter? What did my clever plot twists signify when I’d missed the biggest one in my own life?
Beyond the logistical fears about my own future was another terrifying realisation: I no longer wanted to write the detective book. Overnight, I’d lost interest in stories about detectives solving crimes, justice being served through shootouts and the court system, about the bad guys getting caught and punished. Suddenly, those seemed too neat, too fake, like fairy tales and not the Grimm’s variety.
Real betrayal, I learned, doesn’t get solved in 300 pages. Real deception doesn’t wrap up with a satisfying twist where everything makes sense and the protagonist emerges stronger and wiser. Real betrayal sits there, ugly and unresolved, in the middle of your life while people take sides and you fill the garage with items you once cherished and no longer want to see.
I started thinking about the kinds of stories that had never interested me – messy ones where the protagonist doesn’t figure everything out and there are no clear villains, just people making terrible choices for complicated reasons. Stories set in the ugly places I’d never wanted to go until now.
When I found my way back to the page, I rewrote the surrogate story, cutting the point of view from the detective, and placing the biological mom at its centre with her best friend from high school as the surrogate who vanishes four days before the baby is due.
In this new version, the story focuses on these women who were friends in high school and the complications of their long, intense friendship.
Though there is a big moral question at the centre of the book, as well as a fun, juicy plot, it was the interactions between the characters themselves that allowed me to explore the messy reality of life that I was living through while writing.
My divorce was finalised at the end of 2023, a few months after I got a new agent, six months before my agent sold that book, Pinky Swear, at auction for release earlier this year. It was the hardest book I’ve ever written and the best.
Courtesy of Danielle Girard
The one I’m writing now is trickier, more complicated. It’s about a woman who discovers her husband’s long affair with a massage therapist.
My husband was married to a thriller writer for almost 30 years. This can’t come as a surprise to him. Still, this is not a memoir. There’s a murder, for starters. But there are echoes from my own experience in the details, like the secrets that begin small and seem harmless … until they’re not.
While the main character is not me, the protagonist is walking in my own, uncomfortable shoes, trying to construct a narrative to make sense of chaos, and working to find a path forward when the narrative crumbles.
Every time I drive downtown, I scan the cars, the street, the store or restaurant for my ex-husband and his girlfriend. I still haven’t seen them together, though I know that they are. I wonder what I’ll feel when I do – a fresh wallop of despair? Closure? I have run the scenario a hundred times, and I still don’t know.
What I do know is that the writing I’m doing now feels like what I should be doing. Not because detective fiction isn’t important or valuable, but because I’d been using it as a way to imagine I could manage the outcome and somehow avoid the terrible things that happen to people who I imagined weren’t as studious or as prepared.
For months, I’d been plotting elaborate lies and deceit in that first draft of Pinky Swear while missing the simple, stupid truth: that the person sleeping next to me was a stranger. That I was so good at inventing characters for mysteries, I’d forgotten to be curious about the one I’d married.
I see now what those books were really about: control. The illusion that if you’re smart enough, observant enough, careful enough, you can see the betrayal coming. You can solve the crime. You can write your way to safety.
But you can’t. Life isn’t a thriller, and there’s no genius detective who’s going to figure it all out – no satisfying final chapter where all the pieces fit. At least, not in my life. Instead, there are just little clues I recognised far too late about the person I thought I knew becoming someone I never knew at all.
The book I’m working on now – the one about the woman who discovers her husband’s two-and-a-half-year affair with his massage therapist – will be called Happy Ending.
It won’t be neat or easy, but it might be happy. I hope it will be.
Danielle Girard is the USA Today bestselling and award-winning author of several novels, including the Annabelle Schwartzman series and Pinky Swear. She is also the creator and host of the Killer Women Podcast, where she interviews the women who write today’s best crime fiction. A graduate of Cornell University, Danielle received her MFA in creative writing at Queens University of Charlotte, North Carolina. When she’s not traveling, Danielle lives in the mountains of Montana.
Do you have a compelling personal story you’d like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we’re looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@huffpost.com.
When was the last time you asked your partner something more meaningful than “How was your day?” or “What’s for dinner?”.
It’s easy to think you know everything about the person you’re with. But people evolve over time, and relationships thrive on curiosity.
Asking the right questions can help you better understand your partner and deepen the emotional intimacy between you.
“The ‘right’ questions deepen emotional connection and shared meaning,” licensed marriage and family therapist Tara Gogolinski told HuffPost.
“They focus on each other’s inner worlds, not trivia facts or sameness. Couples who understand each other’s emotions, needs, and desires are more resilient, more satisfied, and better able to navigate conflict.”
Westend61 via Getty Images
Dr. Annie Hsueh, a licensed clinical psychologist and couples therapist, said asking thoughtful questions also helps partners develop a “love map” of one another’s inner world – a concept popularised by relationship researcher Dr. John Gottman in The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work.
Couples who maintain detailed love maps are better able to navigate stress, conflict and life transitions, such as having a child or coping with illness.
“Getting to know your partner intimately isn’t a one-off process; it takes consistency,” Hsueh said.
Regular check-ins – whether daily or weekly – while asking the right questions can help couples stay curious about one another and deepen their understanding over time.
The most important questions to ask your partner
According to Gogolinski, healthy couples don’t need to know everything about each other. But there are key questions that, if partners know the answers to them, are strong indicators of a healthy relationship.
“These questions get at the heart of three important concepts: being in tune with each other’s feelings and noticing when something is off (emotional attunement); feeling safe, supported and confident in the relationship (secure connection) and listening, responding, and showing your partner that what they say truly matters (responsive communication),” she said.
Some core questions include:
- What helps you feel most loved or valued?
- What fears or insecurities tend to trigger you?
- How do you prefer to receive comfort when you’re overwhelmed?
To navigate recurring conflicts, Gogolinski recommended knowing your partner’s stress patterns:
- What situations or topics cause you the most stress?
- How do you typically cope: withdrawal, problem-solving, humour?
- What cues indicate you’re feeling overwhelmed or shutting down?
- How can I best support you during stress?
Understanding each other’s emotional world also extends to long-term dreams, values, and personal history:
- What are your long-term goals?
- What excites you the most?
- Who influenced you most growing up?
- What experiences shaped who you are today?
Gogolinski said, “Asking these questions helps you understand your partner on a deeper level and allows you to support them meaningfully.”
bymuratdeniz via Getty Images
Questions that can deepen your connection
One simple way couples can stay emotionally connected is by asking questions that go beyond surface-level updates, Hsueh said.
“When you ask not just what has been on your partner’s mind, but also what has been on their heart, it allows them to reflect more deeply on the things that matter most,” she said. “Stay curious and let the conversation flow. It can deepen your bond.”
Hsueh suggests starting with a daily debrief at the end of the day, which can open the door to more meaningful conversations.
Daily check-in questions might include:
- What was the toughest part of your day today?
- How are you feeling about it now?
- How can I best support you?
- What was the best part of your day today?
- What’s something unique that happened today?
Beyond day-to-day updates, Hsueh recommended regularly checking in about different aspects of your partner’s inner world – including their stress, dreams, emotions, personal history and relationships.
Deeper check-in questions could include…
Stress and concerns
- What’s been weighing on you lately?
- Is there something difficult you’re dealing with that you wish I understood better?
- What concerns have been on your mind recently?
Hopes and dreams
- Where do you see yourself in five years?
- What excites you the most right now?
- Is there something new you’d like to try or learn?
- How can I support you in achieving your goals?
Emotional world
- What moments have brought you joy lately?
- When do you feel happiest?
- What’s something that has been upsetting recently?
Personal history
- Who influenced you most growing up?
- What childhood memories stand out to you the most?
- What experiences shaped who you are today?
Relationships
- How are you feeling about your friendships lately?
- How are things with your family?
- When do you feel most supported by the people around you?
“These types of questions allow you to get to know your partner on a deeper level,” Hsueh said. “They can also help you understand how best to support them, and even make exploring different parts of your lives together more fun.”
How to ask these questions effectively
If asking these types of questions are new to both you and your partner, both Gogolinski and Hsueh recommend the following to make it feel more seamless and natural:
- Soft startups: Begin with curiosity, not accusation.
- Scheduled rituals of connection: Regular check-ins and shared routines keep communication consistent. Pick a time of day or a specific day of the week, and stick with it.
- Turn-taking: Let one partner speak while the other listens fully.
- Normalise differences: Accept that you don’t have to share all preferences to have a strong bond.
- Create emotional safety: Private, distraction-free conversations build trust.
As important as it is to ask the right questions at the right time, both Hsueh and Gogolinski emphasise the importance of honing your listening skills.
“Work on being a good listener,” Hsueh said. “Respond to your partner with curiosity and openness. Listening and staying engaged can help your partner feel safe sharing their thoughts and feelings. The more you create safety around vulnerability, the more you’ll be able to open up to one another – and the closer you’ll become.”
Gogolinski agrees that the intention behind listening matters just as much as the questions themselves.
“It’s important to listen with the intention of understanding, rather than simply preparing your response,” Gogolinski said.
“Validate what you hear your partner saying – for example, ‘Thank you for sharing that,’ or ‘I can see why you’d feel that way.’ Staying curious helps keep the conversation open and prevents defensiveness, assumptions or mind-reading.”
“Try to listen for the emotion being expressed, not just the surface-level content,” she continued. “When we reflect our partner’s emotions back to them, it helps them feel truly understood.”
The post Why is Bob Vylan posing with the ayatollah? appeared first on spiked.
The Starmer government has announced that the UK navy will bail out the Epstein axis’s floundering, illegal war on Iran. A statement on the official UK government website declares that because of its “deep concern about the escalating conflict”, the UK will help escalate the conflict by collaborating with the US.
The UK navy will assist the US in trying to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, along with France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan and Canada. The UK is therefore, entirely unsurprisingly, siding with the aggressors to prevent a sovereign state defending itself in accordance with international law.
But, Starmer being Starmer, the hypocrisy has to be ladled on. The statement also:
condemn[s] in the strongest terms recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas installations, and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces.
We express our deep concern about the escalating conflict. We call on Iran to cease immediately its threats, laying of mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block the Strait to commercial shipping… Freedom of navigation is a fundamental principle of international law, including under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The effects of Iran’s actions will be felt by people in all parts of the world, especially the most vulnerable.
Oddly, no mention is made on the page of the US’s gleefully murderous sinking of an unarmed Iranian ship in international waters, or Israel’s wanton attack on Iran’s major gas field designed to ‘escalate the conflict’ and prevent any negotiations to end the war. Or of both those countries launching their illegal war of aggression in the first place, which forced Iran to take all the measures it can to — entirely legally — defend itself.
Since Starmer is taking the side of the aggressor, those are presumably ok. Yet he and his drones continue to insist ‘we’ are not really taking an active part.
Featured image via the Canary
Koepka ‘thankful’ after girl escapes injury in golf-cart incident
Reddit is weighing identity verification methods to combat its bot problem
I Found A New Way To Make Money With AI
-
Tech6 days agoYour Legally Registered ‘Motorcycle’ Might Not Count Under Proposed US Law
-
Fashion1 day agoWeekend Open Thread: Adidas – Corporette.com
-
Politics1 day agoJenni Murray, Long-Serving Woman’s Hour Presenter, Dies Aged 75
-
Tech4 days agoAre Split Spacebars the Next Big Gaming Keyboard Trend?
-
News Videos3 days agoRBA board divided on rate cut, unusually buoyant share market | Finance Report | ABC NEWS
-
Business6 days agoSearch for Savannah Guthrie’s Mother Enters Seventh Week with No Arrests
-
Crypto World23 hours agoNIO (NIO) Stock Plunges 6.5% as Shelf Registration Sparks Dilution Worries
-
Business5 days agoAustralian shares drop as Iran war enters third week
-
Crypto World5 days agoCrypto Lender BlockFills Enters Chapter 11 with Up to $500M in Liabilities
-
Politics4 days agoThe House | The new register to protect children from their abusers shows Parliament at its best
-
Fashion5 days ago25 Celebrities with Curly Hair That Are Naturally Beautiful
-
Tech2 days agoinKONBINI Lets You Spend Summer Days Behind the Register
-
Crypto World3 days agoCanada’s FINTRAC revokes registrations of 23 crypto MSBs in AML crackdown
-
Politics4 days agoReal-time pollution monitoring calls after boy nearly dies
-
NewsBeat3 days agoResidents in North Lanarkshire reminded to register to vote in Scottish Parliament Election
-
News Videos3 days agoPARLIAMENT OF MALAWI – PAC MEETING WITH REGISTRAR OF FINANCIAL ON AMARYLLIS HOTEL – INQUIRY LIVE
-
Business5 days agoMeta planning major layoffs as AI spending and automation reshape workforce
-
Politics7 days ago9 Stylish Leather Jackets Perfect For Spring 2026
-
Crypto World6 days agoU.S. Oil Companies Post Record Profits as Oil Prices Break $100
-
Entertainment5 days ago
Oscars reunite Rob Reiner supergroup of 17 stars for emotional tribute: Here's who appeared on stage
You must be logged in to post a comment Login