CD

Yvette Cooper Has Just Made Ian Collard The Most Important Man In This Affair This matters enormously and Yvette Cooper's decision to block Ian Collard from giving oral evidence deserves far more scrutiny than it is currently receiving. Collard is the Director Security at the Foreign Office. He is the official who met with Robbins and verbally briefed him that the vetting case was borderline and that the risks could be managed and mitigated. That verbal briefing is the foundation of Robbins's entire defence. It is the moment at which the UKSV recommendation to deny was translated into a manageable risk assessment that justified the override. Collard is therefore, aside from Barton, the single most important witness the committee has not yet heard from. Thornberry's letter to the interim Permanent Under Secretary is forensically precise. The questions she has put in writing cover every dimension of Collard's involvement. Whether he saw the vetting file or just the cover page. Whether he saw which boxes were ticked. What his recollection of the meeting with Robbins was. Whether he described the case as borderline or whether the UKSV recommendation was stronger than that. What actions he took after the meeting. And critically whether his account of that meeting agrees with Robbins's account given in evidence on April 21. That last question is the most important. Robbins told the committee he was verbally briefed that the case was borderline and that risks could be managed. If Collard's written account differs materially from that, the entire basis of the override decision unravels. If it confirms it, the question of why a borderline case with manageable risks was nonetheless overridden under daily pressure from Downing Street becomes even more pointed. Yvette Cooper's decision to decline Collard's oral appearance is constitutionally troubling. The committee has the power to call witnesses. A minister blocking a witness from giving oral evidence to a committee investigating a matter of national security is not a routine procedural decision. It is an attempt to control the evidence available to Parliament. Written evidence can be carefully drafted, legally reviewed and strategically managed. Oral evidence under questioning cannot. Thornberry has handled this correctly by putting the questions in writing and making the letter public. Collard now has to answer on the record. But the decision to keep him out of the committee room, away from follow up questions and real time scrutiny, is itself a data point about what his oral evidence might have revealed. The Foreign Secretary has just made the Collard dimension considerably more interesting than it was before she intervened.

Britain Pays France £662 Million to Stop the Boats. It Has Also Designed the Perfect Magnet to Attract Them. In Koksijde, Belgium, asylum seekers sleep eight to a room on camp beds separated by curtains. They receive eight pounds a week. They eat sloppy rice in a former barracks. For every fifty men, there are seven or eight toilets. Those who wait two years for a decision and receive what they call a negative are removed. The regional governor of West Flanders, Carl Decaluwe, says he can only dream of receiving the kind of financial support Britain gives France. Across the Channel, the picture is rather different. Asylum seekers in Britain receive forty-nine pounds a week. Three meals a day. Free toiletries, free healthcare, free legal advice and free entertainment. Three and four star hotel accommodation in many cases. Almost everything, provided by the British taxpayer. Decaluwe does not need a criminologist to explain why boats are leaving his beaches for Britain rather than staying in Belgium. In the last five years there were one or two departures from West Flanders in total. This year alone there have already been twenty-nine launches and the crossing season has barely started. The governor has convened emergency meetings. He is bracing for an explosion in numbers through the summer. He cannot close the border with France because Brussels will not allow it. Meanwhile, Britain has just signed a new three year deal with France worth six hundred and sixty-two million pounds, paying for drones, helicopters and additional riot police. This is on top of the five hundred million already paid to fund French patrols and surveillance. Crossings have hit new records every year since Britain began paying France to stop them. The governor of West Flanders, asked about the value of the arrangement, was unequivocal. You get nothing, he said. Nothing. If you see the results, year after year, record numbers arriving on British shores. The French have been photographed smiling and pointing as dinghies leave from under their noses. Last year they were witnessed putting migrants on free public transport to departure points. Migrants landed in Kent on the same day the new deal was signed. The Home Office has quietly built in a provision to withdraw funding after a year if results are not delivered, which suggests even ministers do not believe the arrangement will work. Labour scrapped the Rwanda scheme on taking office, describing it as expensive and ineffective. Rwanda had not yet removed a single person and the cost projections were significant. The six hundred and sixty-two million pounds now committed to France, producing record crossings year after year, apparently meets a different standard of value for money. Several European countries are now reportedly exploring Rwanda-style third country arrangements of their own, having watched the problem grow. The pull factors driving this crisis are well understood. They are a policy choice. A country that accommodates asylum seekers in hotels, pays them six times what Belgium provides, and offers free legal assistance to delay removal for years has built a system that functions as the most powerful magnet on the continent. Paying France not to intercept the people drawn by that magnet is merely a subscription service for managed failure. Starmer promised to smash the gangs. The gangs are expanding their operations, opening new fronts, and sending as many boats as possible simultaneously as a deliberate tactic to overwhelm coastal surveillance. Two hundred thousand undocumented young males have entered Britain by small boat. The crossing season has not yet reached its peak. The boats will not stop until Britain stops making itself the most attractive destination in Europe. Every other question is secondary to that one.

In a world that can feel cold, those moments when strangers step in without thinking… That’s what restores faith in humanity and reminds you all isn’t lost.

This kind of society only works with closed borders and near zero immigration.

I think we can call this projection. The left create division and then describe efforts to restore unity - through strengthening our common culture - as ‘divisive’. They hate non-progressive people & ideas so they call those people & ideas ‘hateful’. We who are the targets of this nasty message are actually the ones standing for unity and decency; our opponents are the haters (if you doubt it, watch the viciousness of the replies I get to this from the ‘be kind’ brigade)

Disgraceful. Heads should roll for this.

Please remember the #Nottinghaminquiry is still happening & its focusing on the failures of the health sector particularly the corruption of the mental health sector. This is for all of us not just Nottingham the whole system works like this.

HORRIFYING UPDATE: One of the rapists, Karin Al-Danasurt, is also a convicted murderer in his homeland of Egypt. Yes, that is him smiling and laughing in the picture. The UK is opening its borders to monsters and demons who should NEVER have been let in. This is a nightmare.

“She remembered being spat on, kicked, and her throat being grabbed during the attack, as well as men laughing.” These sick men, 2 Egyptians and an Iranian broke into Britain by small boat. The poor victim would not have been raped if our political leaders secured our border. Yes, of course British nationals also commit crime.  But these men broke into the country and instead of being punished were treated to free hotels and meals. Every such horrific crime is directly downstream from the cowardice and betrayal of our political class. And most mind blowing of all: the government is STILL spending billions of your money importing thousands more Afghans, which of course the Tories started. It’s not just these monsters Reform would deport. It’s all those who entered illegally, including those who Tory and Labour governments granted asylum. That’s the only way.

Three illegal immigrants have been found guilty of gang raping a British woman on a beach in Brighton. They brutally raped her while filming and calling her a "Dirty b****". At one point, one of the rapists grabbed hold of her face, forced open her mouth and spat in it while encouraging his friends to do the same. The victim said: "I was begging them to stop and they wouldn't. Every time I close my eyes I can see them laughing at me. They thought it was funny. My skin crawls because of what they did. They're evil and they've ruined my life." She may never recover from this trauma. This is what the British government has done to the women of this country. There needs to be a reckoning.

Pleased to be able to confirm that the police now have a suspect in custody, with regards to the nasty video of an Orthodox Jewish man being verbally and physically harassed in Slough this week.

Little Stopped Mid-Sentence. She Cited National Security. The Question Is Why. There is a moment in Thursday's committee testimony that has received almost no attention. It lasted perhaps ten seconds. It may be the most important thing said in any parliamentary hearing since this affair began. Cat Little, the most senior civil servant in the Cabinet Office, was asked a direct question by Dame Emily Thornberry. Was there anything in the security vetting that was not in the due diligence report? Little began to answer. She got four words in. "I don't think I can, without revealing..." She stopped. She did not finish the sentence. Thornberry pressed her immediately. Was there something in the vetting that was different, more worrying, of more impact than the due diligence? Little paused. She said she wanted to get this right. She said she did not want to make things harder than they already were for the national security system. Then she retreated into carefully constructed language about the vetting potentially containing more information by the nature of the exercise. That exchange has been treated in most of the coverage as a non-answer. It was not a non-answer. It was a partial answer that stopped precisely at the point where disclosure would have become dangerous. Consider what is already in the public domain. The due diligence report flagged Mandelson's connections to Russian missile defence infrastructure, his Chinese state enterprise links, and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. All of that is documented, reported and on the parliamentary record. None of it required Little to stop herself mid-sentence. None of it required a reference to the national security system. Those concerns are already public. Whatever Little was protecting is something else. The specific language she used is the key. She did not say she could not discuss the vetting for reasons of process or confidentiality, the standard civil service deflection. She said she did not want to make things harder than they already were for the national security system. That is a specific and meaningful distinction. It describes information whose disclosure would cause active harm to national security, not merely information that is procedurally confidential. The Russia and China connections are already public. The Epstein dimension is already public. The UKSV recommendation to deny clearance is already public. Whatever stopped Cat Little mid-sentence in that committee room is none of those things. It is something beyond them. Something that has not surfaced. Something that a Cabinet Office permanent secretary judged, in real time, was too sensitive to discuss even in the controlled environment of a parliamentary hearing. Mandelson was granted Strap Three clearance. That is the highest level available to the Foreign Office. It gives access to intelligence that could endanger sources if leaked. He was granted that clearance after the security services had recommended against it. He was granted it by an official operating under what Robbins described as constant pressure from Downing Street. And he was granted it despite whatever it is that Cat Little would not say in open committee. The country has been told the vetting concerns related to Russia and China. Cat Little's unfinished sentence suggests that may not be the complete picture. The question of what was in that file, beyond what has been disclosed, is now the most important unanswered question in British politics. But nobody in the room pushed hard enough to find out why. "Mandelson was granted Strap Three clearance. That is the highest level available to the Foreign Office."

Read and RT if u can. 🙏 ❗️The true risk and menace of Valdo Calocane, and the abhorrent lack of care and professional ‘curiosity’ of all staff, at every level, in Nottingham Mental Health Trust is finally being exposed. Stark and terrifying in its detail and chilling similarities with Southport. Mainstream media; if you have capacity. Cover this. It’s happening live and on public stream. Every day until June 10th. Find some space alongside your relentless analysis of Starmer/Mandelson/McSweeney/et al. to make sure this is OUT in the public arena. Only by this will accountability and change be FORCED to happen. We are all here and willing to talk…. @EmilyMayTV @nottslive @ITVCentral @Fhamiltontimes @emilyjaneheap @BBCNottingham @bbcemt You are doing an amazing job. But we plead for all interested outlets to PLEASE support. If you don’t, it could be your son, daughter or father next. #nottinghaminquiry 💚💛 nottingham.independent-inquiry.uk ⏯️ @TheNottinghamInquiry" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">m.youtube.com/@TheNottingham…

The Record Is Missing. The File Is Hidden. The Vetting Found Something Worse. Three things emerged from Thursday's committee testimony that have not yet received the attention they deserve. Taken together they do not merely damage Keir Starmer's position. They suggest that what has been disclosed so far is not the whole story. Start with the missing record. Cat Little, the most senior civil servant in the Cabinet Office, told the Foreign Affairs Committee that she would expect to see a formal record of the meeting at which the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson. No such record has been found. In British government, decisions of this magnitude are minuted. They are documented precisely so that accountability is possible. The absence of a formal record of the most consequential ambassadorial appointment in a generation is not a filing oversight. It is either a governance failure of staggering proportions or a decision that was deliberately kept off the formal record. Cat Little did not say which. She did not need to. Then there is the vetting file. Little was asked directly whether the security vetting contained anything beyond what was in the due diligence report. She began to answer and stopped herself, saying she could not respond without revealing something. Emily Thornberry pressed her. Was there something in the vetting that was different, more worrying, of more impact than the due diligence? Little declined to confirm directly but made clear the vetting could contain more information by the nature of the exercise. The due diligence report flagged Russia, China and Epstein. If the vetting found something beyond that, something serious enough that the Cabinet Office's most senior official would not discuss it in open committee, the question of what Mandelson was granted Strap Three clearance despite knowing is considerably more serious than anything yet made public. And then there is the most extraordinary detail of all. In March, Little asked Robbins to hand over the vetting summary document and the audit trail around the decision. Robbins refused. A sacked civil servant, already the subject of a bitter public dispute with Downing Street, declined to hand the Cabinet Office chief the documents she needed to brief the Prime Minister and comply with Parliament's Humble Address. Those documents are still not in the public domain. The information that would answer the central question of this entire affair, what the security services actually found and on what grounds the Foreign Office overrode it, is being withheld. Starmer's response to all of this has been to accuse his political opponents of making any allegation they can. That framing requires the country to disbelieve Cat Little, who contradicted his account twice in a single morning. It requires the country to disbelieve Robbins, whose sworn testimony directly contradicts Starmer's selective quotation at PMQs. It requires the country to believe that the absence of a formal record of the appointment decision is normal. And it requires the country to accept that whatever the vetting found, beyond the Russia and China concerns already documented, is simply none of Parliament's business. Karl Turner, a suspended Labour MP, has written to the Speaker urging a privileges committee referral. A senior government source has told journalists that the wheels have stopped turning and the question is no longer whether things can go on but when people move. That is not the language of a government managing a crisis. It is the language of a government that knows the crisis is no longer manageable. The record is missing.The file is hidden. The vetting found something worse than what has been disclosed. And a Prime Minister who calls that a political allegation is a man who has run out of road. "Little asked Robbins to hand over the vetting summary document and the audit trail around the decision. Robbins refused."

During the October 7 attacks on Israeli towns and at the Nova Music Festival, women and girls were rap*d, assault*d, and mutilat*d. Released hostages have revealed that Israeli captives in Gaza have also been sexually assaulted. 🧵

“You dirty motherf***ing Jew.” We are working to identify this thug who violently assaulted a Jewish man shouting “baby killer” at him. No mention of “Zionists” here. This is Jew-hatred without its disguise. This violent assault was captured by a visibly Jewish man who was going about his work. This is the current climate in the UK which has been bred by the inaction and appeasement from the authorities. Jews going about their daily lives are not safe from being subjected to vile assault and violent threats. This incident took place on Monday, 20th April at 16:20 on Elliman Avenue in Slough, SL2 5AZ. If anyone has further information, we urge you to contact the Thames Valley Police immediately using crime reference number 43260192511.

Just been sent this very disturbing video. This isn’t terrorism, this is the normalisation of Jew hate in the UK.

“We don’t want no Green Party here. Zack is a radical Muslim lover. He’s a threat to this country.” Can’t argue with this guy in Hackney. Brilliantly put.

Hey @Morrisons I will never buy ONE thing from you ever again unless this guy, trying to stop shoplifting, is reinstated. RETWEET IF YOU AGREE

@EdwardJDavey, with respect, that analysis is back to front and the facts don't support it. Trump did not ask for Mandelson. He asked for Dame Karen Pierce to stay. She was already in post, already trusted by the incoming administration, already known to Trump personally, and his team had made clear they wanted continuity. A senior Trump campaign adviser described her as professionally universally respected and lamented her removal. Trump himself has since said the Mandelson appointment was a mistake. Starmer did not replace Pierce to flatter Trump. He replaced her despite Trump's preference. The decision to install Mandelson was driven entirely from the British side, by people around Starmer who wanted that specific figure in that specific post for reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained. So the question is not why Starmer tried to appease Trump. The question is why he overruled Trump's own preference, removed a diplomat the Americans trusted, and installed a man the security services had said should not be cleared, in the face of warnings about Russia and China connections that were sitting in his own due diligence report. That is not appeasement of Trump. That is something else entirely. And it is the question nobody in Parliament has yet succeeded in getting Starmer to answer. "Trump did not ask for Mandelson. He asked for Dame Karen Pierce to stay."