Gordon Fielden

Bad news for Reform UK in Wales: New Law to make it illegal to lie in Welsh elections is passed in Senedd. It is now a criminal offence in Wales to make false or misleading statements as an election candidate. bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

@AZ_Brittney Yes

Simple Yes or No? ✋

Two former FBI special agents sued agency director Kash Patel in federal court, claiming they were fired because of their work on ‌the investigation into President Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election reut.rs/4uFREAb

Why is it that the question of Israel’s nuclear capability is so rarely addressed with the same intensity as others? Israel is widely understood to possess nuclear weapons, along with advanced delivery systems, including submarines. Yet it is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and does not subject itself to the same international inspection regimes that are demanded of other states. This creates an obvious imbalance in how nuclear risk is discussed globally. Countries such as Iran are scrutinised relentlessly, while Israel’s position is largely treated as untouchable within mainstream political and media discourse. Part of this stems from long standing geopolitical alliances, particularly with the United States and other Western nations, where Israel is viewed as a strategic partner. That reality has, over time, limited the willingness of governments and major media organisations to apply equal scrutiny. However, the principle should be consistent. If nuclear proliferation is considered a threat to global stability, then that standard must apply universally, not selectively. Avoiding the question does not remove the issue. It simply undermines the credibility of the wider international framework that is supposed to regulate such weapons. A serious and honest conversation about global security requires that all states are subject to the same level of examination, regardless of alliances or political sensitivities.

US-Israel strikes have destroyed Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, Netanyahu says ft.trib.al/CJPM3us

We are taking no lessons from Camilla Tominey. She has been an outspoken critic of Keir Starmer and the Labour government from the outset, relying too often on misdirection and distortion rather than balanced analysis. Writing for The Telegraph, a publication widely recognised for its consistent hostility towards this government, that stance is hardly surprising. What is more telling is the persistent tendency within parts of the media, including broadcasters such as the BBC, to amplify these narratives without sufficient challenge. It creates an environment where commentary is presented as fact, and scrutiny becomes selective. This kind of commentary does little to inform public understanding. Instead, it reinforces division and entrenches positions, offering criticism without substance and noise without accountability. If journalism is to serve any real purpose, it must be grounded in fairness, accuracy, and a willingness to engage with the truth, not simply to oppose it.

"The Chancellor and the Prime Minister complain about gas and oil companies profiteering: who profiteers most from the driver in the UK? It's actually the government." The Telegraph's Camilla Tominey on the impact of the war in Iran on consumers. #Newsnight

Pure rubbish, and that is what she would like to believe. She leads a party in crisis, one that has no meaningful relevance in British politics at present, and that is plain for all to see. The reality is that her position is increasingly untenable, and it would surprise no one if she were replaced in the near future. The wider public has little interest in what she has to say. There is no sense of direction, no credible policy platform, and no connection with the electorate. What remains is little more than noise, without substance or purpose. Until that changes, neither she nor her party will be taken seriously.

Kemi Badenoch: We are in Iran war ‘whether we like it or not’ channel4.com/news/kemi-bade…

An agent of the fascist Reform movement making comments like this tells you everything you need to know. Keir Starmer has taken a measured and deliberate position throughout the conflict involving Iran. He refused to drag the United Kingdom into offensive military action, resisted pressure from Donald Trump, and kept the focus on protecting British interests and avoiding escalation (Politics Home). That is what responsible leadership looks like. So when individuals aligned with Reform UK attempt to undermine that position, it is not about principle, it is about politics. The same voices that would happily see Britain pulled into reckless decisions are now criticising restraint and stability. The reality is far simpler than their rhetoric. They thrive on division, on noise, and on misrepresentation. Their arguments are not grounded in facts, but in grievance. And when you see attacks like this, it becomes increasingly clear where the influence lies. Not in the national interest, but in amplifying a narrative that benefits those who seek to destabilise rather than strengthen. That is the difference. One side is acting with caution, legality, and the protection of its people in mind. The other is shouting from the sidelines, offering nothing but distortion.

“I’m amazed that Keir Starmer is being portrayed as some strong, decisive leader” Reform UK’s James Orr says the Prime Minister’s response to the US-Israel war with Iran was “not clear” and “Starmer followed Farage” on allowing the US to use UK bases #bbcqt

You are entirely missing the point. The Conservative Party is not holding anyone to account. It is reduced to sniping from the margins while refusing to confront its own record. Until it acknowledges that its fourteen years in government amounted to a profound failure, it will remain politically irrelevant. Brexit, which the party championed, has inflicted lasting damage on the economy. That is no longer a matter of debate, it is borne out in trade performance, investment patterns, and growth. Yet there is still no serious attempt from within the party to accept responsibility for that outcome. The electoral consequences are clear. In poll after poll, the Conservatives are languishing at historically low levels. In the most recent by election, securing barely two per cent of the vote is not a warning sign, it is a collapse. That alone should prompt reflection, yet none appears to be forthcoming. The leadership does little to inspire confidence, and that perception is not confined to one side of the political spectrum. It is widely recognised, both within the United Kingdom and beyond, that the party has lost direction. There is, however, a path back. It lies in returning to a credible centre right position, grounded in economic competence and seriousness rather than rhetoric. The party was once a defining force in British political life, and that is precisely why its current state is such a profound failure. Until it is prepared to face that reality, it will remain exactly where it is now, on the fringes, watching events rather than shaping them.

@GordonFielden @spectator Conservatives are the only party holding this disastrous government to account. All the scandals, resignations, sleaze, corruption and u-turns haven't just magically happened. Peoole are sick of Labour. Which credible party will there be to vote for in 3 years?

The Tories launched their local election campaign this morning, with a beaming Kemi Badenoch surrounded by rows of flag-waving party members. The polls remain stubbornly low for the party, but the Conservative leader gave little sign of that getting to her. ✍️ James Heale Article | spectator.com/article/badeno…

@Dan94750 @BBCNews Hello bot Thank you and goodbye.

@GordonFielden @BBCNews Nobody is reading all that 🤣

Fifa rules women's teams must have female coaches bbc.in/4bUgUv2

This is not a serious argument, it is a recycled talking point dressed up as concern for the taxpayer. The claim that Keir Starmer is somehow serving “unelected elites” is particularly hollow when one considers who actually financed and drove Brexit in the first place. The real influence did not come from ordinary voters, it came from well funded interests who saw advantage in weakening collective European cooperation. That is the irony at the heart of this entire narrative. On fishing, the reality is the complete opposite of what is being suggested. The industry was used as a political symbol, but in practice it has been one of the clearest casualties of Brexit. Before leaving the European Union, British seafood moved quickly and efficiently into European markets. After Brexit, the introduction of paperwork, delays, and additional costs made large parts of that trade far less viable. That was not unforeseen, it was widely predicted, but it was ignored and, in many cases, deliberately misrepresented. To now present pragmatic agreements on access as some kind of betrayal is simply an attempt to disguise the consequences of those earlier decisions. The damage was done when friction was introduced into the system, not when efforts are made to reduce it. As for universities, the suggestion that international access undermines the taxpayer is equally misplaced. The United Kingdom’s higher education sector is one of its strongest global assets. It brings in revenue, supports jobs, and enhances the country’s standing. Turning that into a grievance speaks more to ideology than to economic understanding. What we are seeing here is a pattern. Complex economic realities are reduced to slogans, and those slogans are then used to stir resentment. It is not analysis, it is agitation. And it is worth saying plainly: much of this rhetoric aligns closely with the same voices that have long promoted division, hostility to cooperation, and a narrow view of Britain’s place in the world. The country has already seen where that leads. The choice now is whether to persist with that failure, or to take a more honest and pragmatic path forward.

@BBCNews Starmer and his clique care more for the esteem of unelected European elites than the interests of ordinary tax payers. How else do we explain handing out fishing rights for no good cause and prioritising cheap access to our top universities? Globalist conspirators.

Sir John Curtice: Why Labour's Brexit focus has shifted from Leavers to Remainers bbc.in/3NbXPv6

The pathway to rejoining the European Union rests, in no small part, on the stability and resolve of Keir Starmer as Prime Minister. If that position is to be sustained, then it must be accompanied by a clear sense of direction and the willingness to hold firm in the face of a noisy and often misleading political climate. There is, beyond the visible debate, a quiet majority across the United Kingdom. These are not the voices that dominate social media or public shouting matches. They are the people who observe, reflect, and form their conclusions without spectacle. Many within this group hold a deep and settled opposition to the rhetoric and conduct of Reform UK and the fascists who amplify division and grievance. They represent not a fringe, but a substantial and often overlooked centre of gravity in British public life. Among those who engage more actively in political discourse, including many within my own following, there is a strong sense that the country’s long term interests lie in rebuilding a meaningful relationship with Europe, ultimately leading to rejoining the European Union. This is not driven by nostalgia, but by a practical recognition of economic reality and Britain’s place in the modern world. The divide, as it stands, appears increasingly generational and structural. There remains a cohort, often older, who retain a belief in a form of Britain shaped by past imperial influence, and who view departure from the European Union through that lens. Alongside them sits a more disaffected group, often alienated from mainstream politics altogether, whose support for movements such as Reform is rooted less in coherent policy and more in anger, distrust, and, at times, rhetoric grounded in racism and hostility to government in any form. Yet it would be a mistake to assume that these voices represent the majority. Much of the public does not participate in polling, nor are they regularly captured by the methodologies of organisations such as YouGov. Polling has its place, but it is not a complete reflection of national sentiment. Many people simply do not engage in those processes, and their views are instead revealed in less structured settings. One only has to observe public forums, such as audiences on BBC Question Time, to see a more nuanced picture. While governments are rightly scrutinised, there has been a consistent and noticeable resistance to the arguments put forward by Reform representatives. The reception they receive is often far from supportive, suggesting that their apparent momentum may be overstated when removed from controlled or self selecting environments. Taken together, this points towards a political opportunity rather than a constraint. The conditions are gradually aligning for a more honest national conversation about Britain’s future relationship with Europe. If approached with care and clarity, there is a credible pathway towards a second referendum, potentially aligned with the general election expected in the latter part of this decade. Such a strategy would allow Labour to seek a renewed mandate, not simply to govern, but to resolve the question of Britain’s place in Europe with democratic legitimacy. It is, of course, a calculated risk. However, by 2028 or 2029, if the government has demonstrated competence, stability, and economic progress, it may well prove to be a risk worth taking. The central point remains this: the political landscape is not as it was in 2016 or even 2019. Beneath the surface noise, the country is changing. The question is whether its leadership is prepared to recognise that shift and act upon it.

@GordonFielden @UkrReview

Is he seriously suggesting that the so called free world consists only of the United States and Israel, and that the rest of us are somehow marginal or of no consequence? Because that is very much how it is coming across, and it reflects the tone being set by Benjamin Netanyahu. We know that Netanyahu is the central political figure in Israel, the focal point through which power is exercised. Yet the position he advances appears increasingly detached from the wider international consensus. Israel, a country of under nine million people, is widely understood to possess nuclear weapons, alongside a sophisticated military capability that includes advanced delivery systems. This raises an obvious and persistent question. Under the framework of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the spread of nuclear weapons is meant to be tightly controlled, with clear obligations placed upon those who possess them and those who do not. Israel is not a signatory to that treaty, and therefore sits outside its formal structure, yet it continues to maintain and expand its capabilities. By contrast, countries such as Iran face strict international scrutiny and limitations in relation to nuclear development. That imbalance lies at the heart of ongoing tensions. Until there is a consistent and universally applied approach to nuclear capability, one that addresses all states rather than a selective few, the prospect of lasting peace will remain distant. Recognition of that imbalance is an essential starting point for any meaningful progress.

Israeli President: Trump is leading the free world in the right direction channel4.com/news/israeli-p…

There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how discrimination law operates in this area. These matters are not determined by opinion or preference, but by established legal principles, supported by statute and reinforced through case law across both the United Kingdom and Europe. In the United Kingdom, the position is set out clearly in the Equality Act 2010. Roles such as manager, coach, or trainer are not defined by sex, but by competence and the ability to perform the role. Excluding an individual from such a position purely on the basis of being male or female would, in almost all circumstances, amount to unlawful discrimination. The same principle applies across Europe under the Equal Treatment Directive 2006/54/EC, which guarantees equal treatment in employment. As in the United Kingdom, any exception must meet the strict test of being a genuine and determining occupational requirement, a threshold that is interpreted very narrowly by the courts and requires clear, objective justification. Coaching and managerial roles in football do not meet that threshold. These are professional positions which have long been carried out by men and women across both male and female teams at every level of the game. There is nothing inherent in the role that requires it to be performed by one sex rather than the other. Legal professionals who deal with these matters are well acquainted with both the statutory framework and the relevant case law. Any attempt to defend a policy that excludes candidates from coaching or managerial roles solely on the basis of sex would, in all likelihood, fail when tested against the law in either jurisdiction. The position is therefore consistent and unambiguous. The legal protections are already in place, and they apply equally across the United Kingdom and the wider European framework.

@GordonFielden @BBCNews FIFA is mandating that at least one coach be woman, not all coaches. Having one female assistant coach will comply with this rule. x.com/GordonFielden/…

There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how discrimination law operates in this area. These matters are not determined by opinion or preference, but by established legal principles, supported by statute and reinforced through case law across both the United Kingdom and Europe. In the United Kingdom, the position is set out clearly in the Equality Act 2010. Roles such as manager, coach, or trainer are not defined by sex, but by competence and the ability to perform the role. Excluding an individual from such a position purely on the basis of being male or female would, in almost all circumstances, amount to unlawful discrimination. The same principle applies across Europe under the Equal Treatment Directive 2006/54/EC, which guarantees equal treatment in employment. As in the United Kingdom, any exception must meet the strict test of being a genuine and determining occupational requirement, a threshold that is interpreted very narrowly by the courts and requires clear, objective justification. Coaching and managerial roles in football do not meet that threshold. These are professional positions which have long been carried out by men and women across both male and female teams at every level of the game. There is nothing inherent in the role that requires it to be performed by one sex rather than the other. Legal professionals who deal with these matters are well acquainted with both the statutory framework and the relevant case law. Any attempt to defend a policy that excludes candidates from coaching or managerial roles solely on the basis of sex would, in all likelihood, fail when tested against the law in either jurisdiction. The position is therefore consistent and unambiguous. The legal protections are already in place, and they apply equally across the United Kingdom and the wider European framework.

@GordonFielden @BBCNews It's not unlawful

There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how discrimination law operates in this area. These matters are not determined by opinion or preference, but by established legal principles, supported by statute and reinforced through case law across both the United Kingdom and Europe. In the United Kingdom, the position is set out clearly in the Equality Act 2010. Roles such as manager, coach, or trainer are not defined by sex, but by competence and the ability to perform the role. Excluding an individual from such a position purely on the basis of being male or female would, in almost all circumstances, amount to unlawful discrimination. The same principle applies across Europe under the Equal Treatment Directive 2006/54/EC, which guarantees equal treatment in employment. As in the United Kingdom, any exception must meet the strict test of being a genuine and determining occupational requirement, a threshold that is interpreted very narrowly by the courts and requires clear, objective justification. Coaching and managerial roles in football do not meet that threshold. These are professional positions which have long been carried out by men and women across both male and female teams at every level of the game. There is nothing inherent in the role that requires it to be performed by one sex rather than the other. Legal professionals who deal with these matters are well acquainted with both the statutory framework and the relevant case law. Any attempt to defend a policy that excludes candidates from coaching or managerial roles solely on the basis of sex would, in all likelihood, fail when tested against the law in either jurisdiction. The position is therefore consistent and unambiguous. The legal protections are already in place, and they apply equally across the United Kingdom and the wider European framework.

@GordonFielden @BBCNews How is it discrimination to want a female team to be made up of females? You have a ridiculous amount of male coaches and YOU feel discriminated against? Cmon! 🤣

Just send the money and be damned until Hungary complies with all European regulations to which it has committed itself, and which it is plainly failing to uphold at present. The European Union has every right to bypass such obstruction and proceed with providing the funds to Ukraine. Perhaps that will serve as a salutary moment for the country in the approach to the forthcoming election, and impress upon its people the true importance of membership of the European Union.

🇩🇪🇪🇺🇺🇦 Merz calls on EU to immediately provide Ukraine with a €90 billion loan and end Budapest's blockade. He said Europe cannot allow individual countries to block decisions affecting the security of the entire continent. During his speech, Merz stressed that the financial assistance has already been agreed at the EU level and must be provided without delay. He stressed that delay creates risks for Ukraine, which needs resources for defense and maintaining economic stability

Just send the money and be damned until Hungary complies with all European regulations to which it has committed itself, and which it is plainly failing to uphold at present. The European Union has every right to bypass such obstruction and proceed with providing the funds to Ukraine. Perhaps that will serve as a salutary moment for the country in the approach to the forthcoming election, and impress upon its people the true importance of membership of the European Union.

We must deliver on our promises to Ukraine! It has been months since we, the EU leaders, agreed on the 90 billion euro support package. Ukraine is still waiting. At today's #EUCO, I will stand firm – we cannot let those who hesitate dictate our path. Supporting Ukraine is not just about them, it’s about the collective security of Europe. 🇪🇺🇺🇦 🎥: newsroom.consilium.europa.eu/events/2026031…