Cecil Deville

@Foxy2Para Hang it in the Louvre!

@Jenny_1884 Proper Brexit 💯

If there was a referendum today would you still vote for Brexit?

In his debate with Gary Priestley, Gary Stevenson claims he makes so much money on the markets, his kids will be multimillionaires, while also claiming that everyone else cannot afford to feed their kids or keep the heating on. Strange then, that after a hiatus last year, his return video announced the launch of his Patreon, directly asking his audience, whom he describes as struggling, to fund his work. He explained that, despite his massive personal wealth, he needs their support to create more 'ambitious' and 'creative' content beyond simple talking-head videos. Yet since launching the Patreon, he has released 22 videos in the exact same format, with fewer guests than in earlier periods. He has 2,121 paid subscribers on Patreon, meaning that at a minimum he makes £153k a year from his viewers. He likely makes a similar amount from ad revenue alone, let alone the millions he claims to make on the markets. His entire platform is built on the idea that the rich extract wealth from everyone else. The brazen hypocrisy of him doing this to his own viewers, in the most direct way possible, is incredible.

@CutMyTaxUK @thedissenter Is it true that this guy is advising @ZackPolanski?

The far left's great source of wisdom, Gary Stevenson, reveals total ignorance on tax policy. He claims he pays 60% tax on his earnings made up of 50% income tax & 10% NI. Neither of those rates exist. He can't understand the difference between IHT & income tax & confuses wealth & consumption taxation. A total embarrassment.

@garyseconomics 🙈

He's not having a great week, is he?

Hey @rachelmillward I’ve just completed a very expensive online food order, the price of which, has noticeably increased from last week. Oddly though, I don’t seem to have the urge to pick up a knife and stab random Jews in the street. You?

@StephenNolan It’s brilliant Stephen so well done- these guys and girls do an incredible job. Thanks for showcasing it. They need our full support

The audience reaction to Peelers has been something I have never experienced before in 30 years of journalism . Firstly, thank you . Secondly , this is an example of a proudly local show featuring local people connecting massively with a local audience .

@LeeHarris Give those officers a medal and the other fella who got stuck in. Enough of this on our streets. We must stand with the Jewish community. Must be terrifying for them currently. My only criticism? Should have kicked him harder.

Give these officers a promotion and recommend them for a knighthood. Magnificent work.

@Neccccy Didn’t kick him hard enough. That would be my feedback.

Do you think the police were right to do this to a terrorist with a knife who had just stabbed 2 people? Yes or No?

I’m no royalist, but King Charles is giving a masterclass on sophisticated diplomacy on his US visit. He’s combining charm while displaying dry humour at Donald Trump’s expense. In effect, he’s displaying the type of characteristics that are completely beyond Keir Starmer.

An absolute masterclass in diplomacy. Brilliant 👏

@khau_james @Mike_kim714 Because he is 🙈

@Mike_kim714 Dude won a green jacket and thinks he’s above all you guys now.

I hope to get to a point where I decide to skip a signature event even when healthy

@SorchaEastwood Bacon fries with a 🍺

Never mind the politics, what one you having? 😂 don't tell me neither or you're banned lol

@DavidPoulden Hoofing

Go on the boys 👊🏻🇬🇧 Royal Marines boxing vs. US Navy boxing. Watch until the end 👀

Keir Starmer’s missing the point. If he needs a vetting process to tell him Peter Mandelson was a terrible choice for Ambassador, Starmer hasn’t got the judgement to be Prime Minister

The Man Nobody Is Talking About. His Name Is Sir Philip Barton. Buried inside Tuesday's committee testimony, beneath the headlines about constant pressure, bullying and secret job searches, is the detail that may prove the most consequential of this entire affair. It concerns not Olly Robbins, not Morgan McSweeney, not even Keir Starmer. It concerns the man who was there before all of them. The man who said no. The man who then left his post eight months early. Sir Philip Barton was the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office when Peter Mandelson's appointment was announced in December 2024. He was, in other words, the most senior civil servant in the building at the precise moment the machinery of state was being directed to place a man with documented links to Russia and China into the most sensitive diplomatic posting in the Western alliance. What Robbins told the committee on Tuesday is this. Barton pushed back. When the Cabinet Office argued that vetting Mandelson was unnecessary, that a peer and Privy Councillor did not require developed vetting, Barton refused to accept it. He insisted that vetting was a requirement. He had to be, in Robbins's own words, very firm in person. He also voiced reservations about the appointment to Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser, reservations that were noted and not acted upon. He was worried, Robbins suggested, about exactly the same reputational risks that had been detailed to the Prime Minister before the appointment was announced. Then Sir Philip Barton left his post. Eight months before his tenure would otherwise have concluded. The question Richard Foord put to Robbins on Tuesday was the right one. Why did Barton's tenure end early? Robbins said he did not know. He suggested ministers may have felt it was time for a change. That answer is not an answer. It is the absence of one. Consider what the timeline now shows. A senior civil servant pushes back against the appointment, insists on vetting when the Cabinet Office wants to bypass it, raises reservations with the National Security Adviser, and departs eight months ahead of schedule. His replacement arrives to find the appointment already treated as a fait accompli, the vetting process under constant pressure from Downing Street, and the question of outcome entirely subordinate to the question of speed. If Barton was removed because he stood in the way of this appointment, then Robbins was not the first civil servant sacrificed to protect it. He was the second. And the question of who else was moved aside, overruled or silenced in the months between December 2024 and the moment the security services finally said no, becomes the most important question this affair has yet produced. Starmer sacked Robbins for following the rules. The Foreign Affairs Committee will now call Barton to give evidence. What he says will either confirm what the timeline already suggests or provide an alternative explanation that the evidence does not currently support. There is a pattern here that goes beyond process failure. Process failures are random. They point in different directions. What this affair has produced is a series of events that point consistently in one direction. Officials who comply are retained. Officials who push back depart. The security services are bypassed. The vetting is treated as an administrative inconvenience. And the one question nobody at the top of this government will answer is why this appointment, this man, this post, mattered so much that every obstacle was removed to make it happen. Barton apparently asked that question. He left eight months early. The country deserves to know why.

@InOppositionto @jonsopel @LoftusSteve There’s always a tweet ….

@jonsopel @LoftusSteve

I have listened to Sir Olly Robbins evidence for last hour and forty minutes and am seeing the very best of the civil service. I am left incredulous that the decision was made to fire him. Has there been a more egregious and shameful decision by a political master desperate to save his own skin?

💯 he is clearly a man of principle and integrity

Biggest news today is that Olly Robbins is a huge loss to the civil service. Decent, thorough, honest.