New evidence on Charlie Kirk shooting raises questions [VIDEO]
Share this post:
Was Tyler Robinson really a “leftist” who killed Charlie Kirk for political reasons — or is the truth far murkier?
In this video, we dig into the latest evidence: the alleged hidden note, text messages, and what prosecutors say about Robinson’s motives.
Some insist it proves he was left-wing.
Others argue it shows his motives were personal, contradictory, or simply unclear.
What does the evidence really tell us — and why are right-wing voices so eager to force their own narrative onto it?
Make up your own mind:
Share this post:
When allies use the word ‘genocide’ (Whip Line launch countdown – two days)
Share this post:
The word genocide is not rhetorical.
It has a precise meaning in international law: actions intended to destroy a group in whole or in part.
It carries obligations.
When it is used by Israel’s own leading human-rights group, B’Tselem, the world has no excuse to ignore it.
In July, B’Tselem reported that Israel’s assault on Gaza — mass civilian deaths, forced displacement, and deliberate starvation tactics — meets that definition.
Coming from an Israeli organisation with decades of meticulous documentation, the finding has exceptional weight.
It isn’t activists or foreign critics saying it: it is Israelis themselves.
So what did the UK government do? Issue cautious calls for “restraint” and “humanitarian access” — while continuing to license arms sales and provide diplomatic cover.
That matters because under the Genocide Convention, our obligations are crystal clear: prevent, punish, and act.
Silence is not neutrality.
It is complicity.
This month’s Whip Line pamphlet examines what B’Tselem’s report meant for international law, for Britain’s responsibilities, and for the moral credibility of those in power.
If our allies say “genocide”, and we still look away, what does that make us?
Read the full piece in The Whip Line, out this Saturday.
Share this post:
Inflation stays high – but we have a new scapegoat
Share this post:
Inflation – that charmless hobgoblin that takes your weekly shopping list, sprinkles it with price shocks, and leaves you wondering whether you accidentally bought gold instead of butter.
This month’s inflation figure is stubbornly high, at 3.8 per cent – and the culprit is clear, if you read the fine print: the Chancellor’s policies.
Rachel Reeves raised employers’ National Insurance Contributions and nudged the minimum wage upward in what she intended to be seen as a laudable gesture.
But in the real world, businesses – including grocery stores – pass those extra pennies directly on to you.
The price of beef is up 25 per cent; butter 19 per cent; chocolate 15 per cent. And before you ask: yes – the chocolate includes your modest afternoon consolations, now priced like imported jewellery.
Remember last month’s scapegoat? “Good weather” supposedly pushed up food prices and air fares.
Now, weather is off the hook; it’s domestic policy taking the rap.
It’s almost as though the government enjoys pointing the finger at a convenient scapegoat while ordinary families shoulder the burden.
Meanwhile, the Bank of England ponders a change in interest rates, but is unlikely to do anything at all – trusting that relief will come in its own time. And the rest of us suffer the price consequences.
The politicians persist in their theatre. Reeves insists she is “bringing costs down”, in spite of the abundance of evidence to the contrary. Conservatives wag fingers at Labour for “stoking inflation.” Liberal Democrats call for heroic interventions on energy bills.
And ordinary people, who neither fly to the sun nor lobby in Whitehall, pay the price.
The story is unchanged. The villains swap costumes – weather, tax, wages – but the victims remain the same.
Families clutch their shopping receipts as if they were talismans against the unseen forces that govern their wallets.
And the excuse-makers, in Westminster and Whitehall, continue their dance, pretending that rising beef and chocolate are somehow beyond their control.
Share this post:
Has Windsor been Trumped? Royal sparkle aims to distract from the political muck
Share this post:
US President Donald Trump has been in the United Kingdom on a historic second state visit. Has it lifted the national mood? Let’s hear from our special commentator, Mr Jive Clames:
If one were to compose a scene of ceremonial splendour, one might be tempted to set it in the Louvre, the Met, or perhaps a particularly ambitious wedding planner’s fever dream. Instead, the United Kingdom offered Windsor Castle — a stone stage for the second state visit of United States President Donald Trump.
The pomp was plentiful, the carriages ornate, the flypasts only partially grounded by drizzle, and the military lines longer than a supermarket queue in Soviet Moscow.
King Charles, seemingly enjoying the thrill of meeting a foreign leader who comes from his beloved Scotland, greeted The Donald with all the warmth of a man who knows tradition is heavy – and his guest might throw it all away at any moment and declare himself “King of Windsor.”
First Lady Melania, Tiffany-adorned and calm, was pressed into service alongside that picture of poise the Princess of Wales, exchanging smiles and gifts with the kind of precision usually reserved for drone strikes.
Trump took to the occasion with an enthusiasm undimmed by the Royal advice to beware of ceremonial swords. He admired St George’s Chapel, saying, “What a place, what a place”. The King confirmed that it was indeed a place.
Pausing over historic documents long enough to establish that he can’t read Old English, The Donald saved face by sprinkling in praise for The King as if auditioning for the role of Royal Master of Ceremonies. Or should that be Court Jester?
But behind the filtered smiles and ceremonial parades, the UK’s facade of calm ceremony has been hiding a boiling pot surrounded by politicians straining to keep the lid on.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was supposed to orchestrate the grand finale, juggling the state visit, plans for his first in-government party conference, and the kind of domestic crises that would have turned him grey – if he wasn’t grey already.
Lord Peter Mandelson had been dispatched in ignominy after his own historic documents – letters to the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein – surfaced just days before this visit by another friend of Epstein. The King’s own brother was also – embarrassingly – connected with that person, so perhaps we can be reassured that this was one subject that was not raised in casual conversation at the ceremonial banquet.
Angela Rayner had resigned over a £40,000 stamp duty ‘miscalculation’, and Paul Ovenden’s intimate digital ‘missteps’ only added to the perception that Downing Street has been conducting business with the same discipline as a drunk on roller skates, herding wild cats.
Witnessing Trump’s parade of pomp and ceremony – coupled with a US technological investment worth £31 billion to … someone – may have been like enjoying a glass of Chateau Margaux while the kitchen explodes in the background.
Starmer’s government, meanwhile, was left to hope that no one noticed the cracks widening inside Windsor’s walls — although four audacious souls did project the Trump-Epstein connection onto the outside of those same walls, perhaps as a subtle reminder , in politics as in royal protocol, optics are everything.
Windsor delivered its spectacle. Trump was duly flattered, the Royals smiled, the media cheered, and Starmer’s government survived for a day or two.
Pageantry can mask fragility, but only until the next crisis rings the bell. And in Westminster, the crises aren’t just lining up – they’re forming a conga.
Share this post:
“Co-production” — when words hide cruelty
Share this post:
When ministers talk about welfare reform, they love words that sound gentle: sustainability, fairness, co-production.
Those words suggest balance and partnership.
But what happens when the words are just a cover?
That’s exactly what campaigners fear is happening with the so-called “co-production” of changes to Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) warned from the start that the review would not be open, transparent, or inclusive. And the signs suggest that were right.
Instead of a wide, independent panel, the review is being run by a small hand-picked group under ministerial control.
Meetings are secret.
Minutes aren’t published.
And the outcomes already look pre-written: measures that push disabled people into greater hardship, justified by claims of “efficiency” and “incentives”.
Behind the jargon, lives are at stake.
The government’s own projections admit that reforms could push tens of thousands below the poverty line.
Campaigners say real co-production would mean disabled people in the majority, independent oversight, and full transparency.
Without those, “co-production” becomes little more than a fig leaf for cruelty.
This month’s Whip Line pamphlet digs into how the process was stacked and what the changes will mean for real people. Because words matter — but actions matter more.
Find the full exposé in The Whip Line – August 2025, out this Saturday.
Share this post:
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
