Daz

@pmak27 The premier league is making last day drama at the moment any one from 5 could be relegated no one wants it to be sorted2 or 3 games left to go

Palace player gets arm pulled Penalty & sending off Leeds player gets tackled round neck Nothing to see here!!

@TonywalkerTony @APresserV2 @NickHow07209652 @GiveMeSport We need to do better 👊

@APresserV2 @NickHow07209652 @GiveMeSport Disappointed we’re at 10 to be honest

🚨Arsenal have been voted as the most HATED fanbase in the Premier League 😳 🗞️ @GiveMeSport #afc

@thecoastguy Nope it’s about how much money he can make as quickly as possible before it gets shut down

It’s a plan to deindustrialise and impoverish and it's going very well.

@Keir_Starmer WANKER

I will never walk away from the mandate I was given. I will never walk away from the people I'm fighting for. I will never walk away from the country I love.

@BasilTheGreat @Iannoshoes @GBNEWS What’s she gunna do now, Halloween only lasts for one day

🚨NEWS: Eni Aluko has officially revealed that she has QUIT broadcasting work following her appearance with Simon Jordan yesterday [@GBNEWS ]

‘Don’t pay any more for him, send him back immediately.’ ‘I could weep at these types of stories.’ Paul Cox and Cristo Foufas react to the verdict of the Afghan small boat migrant found guilty of abducting and raping a 12-year-old girl.

@HJB_News__ Someone said on the radio target practice come on down

Police in Germany arrive in numbers to deal with a migrant with a knife who was threatening members of the public. Nearly 600 of these men have arrived in England in the last two days

@BasilTheGreat Highly qualified 🤔who the fucks she on about

🚨HOW INSANE IS THIS CONVERSATION Eni Aluko says being against DEI is RACIST She then says DEI doesn't involve QUOTAS When Simon Jordan says the most disadvantaged people in society are poor white boys Eni responds saying she just wants to talk about football She's awful

@Crazymoments01 Bullshit she would have grabbed the coyote she had plenty of time , do coyotes understand when a dog is chained up now

Heartbreaking security footage captures a chained mother dog's desperate reaction as a coyote takes her puppy away.

@benonwine Certainly not a fucking hairdresser

What do you think he does for work?

@VictoriaSask Crack on then

The troops are aligned in the UK. There are influential people at ground level; if given a certain order, all hell would erupt with an army of millions. Hold the line, Brits! 👊💪

Please repost if you agree with this statement: I believe @Keir_Starmer is the most hated politician in British history and presents a clear and present danger to democracy and western civilisation. If he is not swiftly removed from power he will destroy England and the English.

@LynBolyn1 @GBNEWS Follow the money

They cheated! They knew about it - who wouldn’t; I read the contract myself and it’s there plain to see; they are lawyers so they must have known - but deliberately tried to undermine the US! They must both go now. We cannot have this treacherous government destroying our democracy! And also our reputation on the international world stage!

Sir Liam Fox says if ministers didn’t know about the 1966 UK-US treaty over the Chagos Islands, or failed to clear the deal with Washington, 'there’s a question of whether we’ve all been misled'. 'There's a question here about Lord Hermer role in all of this.'

@paulmasonnews Wearing a uniform he didn’t fucking earn

#IStandWithStarmer - best Labour PM since Wilson - leading Europe, delivering social justice and standing tall for Britain. Clear?

@MarkFra42642062 @Fatbaldbloke1 Every penny that fucker made out of this should e paid back

@Fatbaldbloke1 Harmer is a disgusting little traitor.

"The 1966 treaty never crossed our desks"

The horrendous Chagos deal is dead, thanks to President Trump’s timely intervention. Keir Starmer and Lord Hermer must resign immediately. There must now be a full and proper investigation into the entire affair. Britain deserves the truth.

@JChimirie66677 @HarrietSergeant Or maybe was getting a back hander we all know he likes a freebie

Thanks, Harriet. It's a fair question, and it gets to the heart of the whole episode. Starmer did it because the gain he was chasing wasn't domestic. It wasn't about improving security, saving money, or helping British citizens. It was about positioning – with international institutions, foreign courts, NGOs, and the wider global policy class that Labour instinctively defers to. Chagos was a long-running irritation in UN forums and international law circles. By giving it away, Starmer could close the file, present Britain as a compliant "rules-based" actor, and earn approval from people who see post-colonial restitution as a moral good in itself, regardless of cost or consequence. That approval matters to him far more than the judgement of voters. There was also a legalistic mindset at work. As a lawyer, Starmer treats unresolved cases as problems to be settled, not contested. He assumed sovereignty disputes should be neutralised, not defended. That's why he reached for courts and treaties instead of power, allies, or Parliament. So the time, money, and political capital weren't "wasted" in his terms. They were spent to buy international legitimacy, ideological comfort, and a clean conscience in elite circles. The fact that the British public gained nothing from it simply didn't register as decisive. That, more than incompetence or corruption, is the real problem.

Keir Starmer's Chagos project has collapsed. Not because new facts emerged, nor because Parliament suddenly woke up, but because the United States finally looked closely at what Britain was doing and said no. The moment Washington raised the 1966 treaty, the whole structure gave way. A deal sold as urgent, lawful, and essential to security could not survive contact with reality. For months, Starmer insisted there was no alternative. He spoke of inevitability, of international law, of security imperatives that demanded speed. Yet the International Court of Justice opinion he relied upon was non-binding. No court order compelled action. No hostile force threatened Diego Garcia. No deadline loomed. The urgency was political, not strategic. And that fiction has now been exposed. The fatal flaw was never Mauritius. It was the treaty Starmer treated as an afterthought. The 1966 UK–US Exchange of Letters is clear. The Chagos Islands are to remain under British sovereignty to ensure the operation of the joint base. That agreement was not obscure. It was foundational. Any competent government would have resolved its status before drafting legislation to hand the territory away. Starmer pressed ahead regardless, confident that the United States would fall into line later. That confidence was misplaced. Trump's earlier acceptance was casual and conditional. But when the legal consequences sharpened, and the treaty could no longer be waved away as a technicality, the White House pulled the plug. Trump called the plan an act of great stupidity, and suddenly the bill vanished from the Lords' schedule. The same government that spoke of urgency now cannot proceed. This exposes the lie at the heart of the deal. If national security were the driver, the treaty would have been the starting point. If legality mattered, Parliament would have been told the full cost and the unresolved risks. Instead, Starmer claimed the handover would cost just £3.4 billion, a figure he falsely linked to the OBR, while his own officials estimated the real bill at more than £35 billion. Parliament was expected to nod it through after the fact, armed with a number that was never true. He hid behind an authority that had not endorsed the figures and rushed a handover that would have placed British sovereignty in legal limbo while tens of billions flowed out of the defence budget. What we are watching is not diplomacy gone wrong. It is statecraft conducted by assumption. Assumption that international courts must be obeyed. Assumption that allies will acquiesce. Assumption that Parliament will rubber-stamp. Assumption that Britain should give first and argue later. That mindset is managerial, legalistic, and deeply hostile to the idea of national power. The bill was pulled because the bluff was called. Once the treaty surfaced, the security argument inverted itself. Once Washington objected, Starmer had nowhere to go. A Prime Minister who claimed there was no choice has now discovered that his choice could not stand. This episode will endure as a warning. Not about Trump's temperament or transatlantic spats, but about a governing class that treats sovereignty as an inconvenience and treaties as paperwork to be tidied up after the fact. Britain was inches away from giving away territory in breach of a live defence agreement, on the back of a non-binding opinion, financed by a fiscal fiction, all to satisfy an international audience that does not vote here and does not pay the bill. Starmer did not stumble into this. He built it on sand. And when the tide came in, it washed away the pretence. "The moment Washington raised the 1966 treaty, the whole structure gave way. A deal sold as urgent, lawful, and essential to security could not survive contact with reality."