𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌

518 posts

𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 banner
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌

𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌

@StanFastic

Back once again for the renegade master d4 damage with the ill behaviour with the ill behaviour with the ill behaviour (tweets deleted after 7 days).

Avalon Katılım Ağustos 2011
1.8K Takip Edilen1.7K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌
Allison Bailey@BluskyeAllison

I made my mind up about Keir Starmer's character years ago. It’s an account of what felt like intimidation by a senior barrister against a pupil barrister - me. It’s a highly personal account I share now for the first time, as Sir Keir is poised to lead Labour into government. My experience may interest those keen to gain insight into the man’s character when he thinks no one that matters is looking. Twenty-two years ago, I was a 32-year-old 'baby barrister'. It was 2002, and I had won one of four places at the prestigious Doughty Street Chambers (DCS) to complete my ‘2nd six’ - six months of training, the last hurdle before becoming a fully qualified practising barrister. The second six months of pupillage is that heady moment when we pupil barristers rise to our feet for the first time in court to advocate for our lay client or on behalf of the state. It’s an incredibly steep learning curve, which one is guided through by a pupil supervisor, pupil mistress, or master in old money. It’s a notoriously difficult and competitive process; in the end, pupils compete for a permanent tenancy or seat in chambers. So, when DSC asked me who I wanted to guide me through pupillage and who I wanted as my pupil supervisor, I asked for Keir Starmer. I was ever so gently informed that Keir wasn’t taking pupils any longer. Honestly, I wouldn’t have been Keir Starmer pupil material. I just wasn’t good enough. So, I requested one of the barristers who conducted my second interview at DSC, the brilliant Philippa Kaufmann. As it turned out, Kaufmann was Keir Starmer’s recent ex-long-term partner, and she agreed to be my pupil supervisor. I wasn’t Phillippa Kaufmann pupil material either, and I will always be grateful to her for taking me on nonetheless. Like Keir, Philippa was on an apparent trajectory to the very top. Like Keir, both would soon take silk and become Queen’s Counsel, as it was known under the reign of Elizabeth II. These were heady days, exciting and utterly terrifying. I was in awe of practically everything and everyone at DSC. I got to experience human rights law as practised by some of the finest barristers in the country. Almost everyone at DSC was friendly and offered to help with any urgent questions or situations a newly qualified barrister was bound to need help navigating, with one standout exception — Keir Starmer. Although I was at DSC for over two years and attended the big bash Keir threw when he took silk in 2002, which was entirely by convention, the pupils were automatically invited; Keir Starmer never once acknowledged me during all of that time, never said ‘hello’ that I can recall. There are things you are strongly advised not to do as a pupil: don’t get drunk at chambers parties and don’t get a crush on your pupil supervisor. So, of course, I did both. I fell in love with my pupil supervisor, Phillippa Kaufmann. It was ridiculous, of course, but at the time, it felt incredibly serious. Just like getting drunk at chambers parties, it was something that was known about at DSC. One evening in chambers, I was in an otherwise empty clerks room at DSC with Phillippa doing some paperwork when we were joined, entirely by coincidence, first by Paul Brooks, who would become Phillippa’s partner and the father of her children and then Keir Starmer. It was awkward, and it was tense. No one was talking. No one was looking at each other. We just got on with whatever we were working on, sitting or standing a couple of feet away from each other. Keir Starmer seemed to me to be quite furious. We all sat silently: the ex-partner, the new partner to be, and the lesbian with a crush. Sometime later that evening, I walked out of DSC onto Doughty Street. As I did so, I encountered Keir Starmer directly opposite, preparing to ride his bicycle away from chambers. When he saw me, he stopped, faced me, and stood there glaring at me, saying not a word. What do you do when you are a pupil and the leading barrister of his generation, a complete superstar, is apparently trying to intimidate you? I imagine the pupil’s handbook would tell me to walk away, now. I stopped, faced him, and glared right back, saying nothing. There we stood, staring each other down from across Doughty Street - Keir Starmer and a lowly pupil, for what felt like minutes. There are some things no amount of education can teach you. I may not have grasped the intricacies of human rights law, but I knew how to stand my ground in the face of what I saw as this man’s attempt to intimidate me. Kier Starmer eventually gave up, hopped on his bicycle and cycled away - and only then did I walk away. Whatever Sir Keir’s many achievements, I will never forget the character of the man I encountered that evening on Doughty Street. Despite this, I would vote for Keir Starmer’s Labour if I believed that women’s rights and lesbian rights were safe in his hands at this pivotal moment in history, but I don’t. I predict that Keir Starmer will sell women and lesbians down the river unless we make it politically impossible for him to do so. We have formed alliances across political lines. This is our great strength. Let us bring it to bear now.

English
0
0
3
148
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
Barrister's Horse
Barrister's Horse@BarristersHorse·
Why do political figures keep describing Keir Starmer as an honest man with integrity? From his forgotten 7 acres, Beergate, to penthouse living, to free suits and specs, to lying by omission re Chagos, WFA, to his unwavering willingness to chuck anyone under a bus to save his own skin... He epitomises a man who has failed upwards, ensuring he tramples on all and sundry whilst doing so. If that amounts to honesty and integrity, heaven help us!
English
46
488
2K
10.5K
Gethin Chamberlain
Gethin Chamberlain@newsandpics·
@SarahTheHaider Parents selling children happens, it’s widespread, always complicated, always awful. Child marriage too. The issue here is that the BBC frames the fathers as victims, rather than the girls. The reporting is fine, the focus is wrong: that province is notorious for child marriage.
English
2
1
18
304
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
Ultra Freya
Ultra Freya@FreyaAndHerCats·
I’m part Irish, and my family fled Ireland during the famine. I’ve never heard stories of Irish people selling their children to survive. And that was during an actual famine, not just poverty. Muslim men are a complete fucking trash and that’s why this happens in Afghanistan.
Jahanzib Wesa@jahanzibwesa

Where are the UN and child protection organizations while Afghan young girls are being sold because of hunger and poverty? This father in Afghanistan was forced to sell his 7 year old daughter after his children went two days without food. This happen today in #Afghanistan.

English
177
846
6.7K
90.9K
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
Anglo Invictus
Anglo Invictus@AngloInvictus·
It's actually much, much worse than the family just "ridiculing" him. The entire family broke up tasks to try and help the attacker get away with murder. The brother called the police to report that they were victims of a racially motivated attack "because they are Sikhs and wearing turbans". The mother took the knife home to wash it and hide it among all the other weapons they are uniquely allowed to have as Sikhs. The father, on video, kept saying the boy was not stabbed. That he was just drunk and was pretending in order to get out of trouble for his racism. Understand this: Henry Nowak didn't drown in his own blood, handcuffed in the street just because he ran into the wrong foreigner and incompetent police responded. He died this way because the entire family instinctively took the side of their kin, no matter what that meant. Their family member had just stabbed a kid repeatedly for legitimately nothing and every single person in the family did their part to try and get him out of it, instantly and without question. If you are still looking at the issue of multiculturalism with some nuance and trying to figure out who gets remigrated and who will be allowed to stay, it's because you do not understand averages when it comes to how brown people think. They share none of the same sense of honor you have. There is no thought of a greater good. There are no moral considerations made. There is only what benefits their co-ethnics, right now, and they will always act as a single unit to achieve whatever gives them the biggest win. Sometimes that looks like an entire family coming together in an instant to cover up a completely senseless murder. Sometimes that looks like Muhammad abducting a 10 year old girl and then calling up 20 other Muhammads that will take turns raping her. Sometimes that looks like a career criminal overdosing on a fentanyl/meth combo during an arrest, and then his race comes together to burn entire cities down as retaliation. They are not like you. They are all like this. You need to start coming to terms with the fact that they are all going to have to go, and you're going to have to play the same game as them to get your country back.
Braeden@BraedenSorbo

Turns out the Indian guy who killed Henry had his entire family show up to ridicule him as he choke on his on blood. "You're fine, you're drunk, no one stabbed you bro" as they sit there watching him die. Then the police show up and they go "he was racist to my son!" The police, who should be in jail, ARREST HENRY AS HE PLEADS WITH THEM FOR MEDIAL ATTENTION. These people are sick. They cannot and do not deserve to live in the 1st world.

English
99
1.9K
11.2K
332.6K
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
Marcus
Marcus@Marcus___007·
Just want to make sure I understand the new rules If there is a terror attack on muslims anywhere in the World, in the UK we now have to ask them if they're okay & understand their anger But if there is a muslim terror attack in the UK we must not look back in anger Got it
English
52
759
5.2K
27.8K
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
Libs of TikTok
Libs of TikTok@libsoftiktok·
BBC is running cover for Afghans who sell little girls for marriage
Libs of TikTok tweet media
English
92
678
2.9K
54.6K
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
pagliacci the hated 🌝
They are selling them for rape. Rape. Rape. Say it with me: Rape. These tiny little girls are going to be raped every day for the rest of their lives. Do not try and sugar coat it with that “marriage/domestic servitude” bullshit. If the old, crusty, disgusting Neanderthals they were being sold to just wanted someone to wash their windows or mow their lawns, they could sell their boys too. But they can’t sell the boys because the old, crusty, disgusting Neanderthals don’t want to rape the boys. And they wouldn’t sell the boys anyway because they see them as actual human beings, where the girls are just another form of livestock to be bought and sold as needed. There is nothing complex about this. It’s Afghan men doing what Afghan men have done (and fought for the “right” to do!!) since they crawled out of the caves they originated from.
English
88
397
4.6K
41.1K
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
Firas Modad
Firas Modad@firasmodad·
Look, if you have Muslim MPs, you will get constant attempts at Muslim blasphemy laws. And if you have Muslim populations, you will get Muslim MPs. If you don't want Muslim blasphemy laws, you don't want Muslim populations in your countries. Don't let anyone pretend that there's a magic integration moment coming.
Ayoub Khan MP@AyoubKhanMP

I will be writing to the MET police seeking that the speakers and actors on the stage of this anti-Muslim /Islamaphobic performance are investigated under public order and hate crime legislation! middleeasteye.net/news/stop-isla…

English
64
814
6.1K
167.6K
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌
“ Under Labour, Britain is becoming a repressive state which is, incredibly, echoing the very characteristics of repression that any former resident of the Soviet Union or its satellite states would recognise today”
Giles Udy@GilesUdy

As a Soviet historian who has spent years writing about the extreme, repressive control Soviet Communism exercised over its unfortunate citizens, I find it really hard to bring a similar accusation against the Labour government and Keir Starmer. But I’m finding it increasingly difficult to avoid that conclusion. We have no Gulag or death penalty, admittedly, but what Labour and the old Soviet regime do have in common is the arrogant belief that they alone hold the moral high ground and that this entitles them to the total control over all those who do not share their worldview. And like the Soviets of old their tools of control are the same… - legislation and co-opted courts and civil service to apply it - the policing of dissent, by hate crime orders, arrests (@glinner), the long term seizure of electronic appliances (@CF_Farrow) to intimidate even those against whom no charges are finally brought. - controlling free speech (12,000 arrests annually for social media posts in 2025). George Orwell’s ‘thought crime’ persecution has become a reality under Labour. - framing dissent (the Unite the Kingdom participants) as racism and far right fascism (Stalin started that in the days when Labour was his captive party, the 1930s, and ‘fascist’ has remained their favoured mantra ever since) - attacking and weakening the family (because the family is so often a place where small ‘c’ conservative values are transmitted down the generations), including the promotion of trans ideology to confuse children in their understanding of the roles of men and women, mothers and fathers. In their eyes women can have penises and ‘heteronormativity’ must be ‘smashed’. - education, wrested as Marx decreed, from the middle class (private schools and VAT), and used as a vehicle for the state propagandising of children and youth at their most vulnerable age. … and much more. In short, I can reach no other conclusion. Under Labour, Britain is becoming a repressive state which is, incredibly, echoing the very characteristics of repression that any former resident of the Soviet Union or its satellite states would recognise today (and they do and tell us so) And with every opportunity Keir Starmer has to rein that in, he instead doubles down. Month by month things get worse. This is 2026. I can’t believe what I am seeing. Or what I’m saying. But, yes, it is going on. And only a majority government of either Tories or Reform (and I do have reservations about both) of a coalition of two can reverse this. … or we are sunk

English
0
0
0
9
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
Pete Sanford
Pete Sanford@PeteSanford·
Burnham’s buddy, Daren Whitaker, who received 700 yes, £ 700 million from Burnham to rebuild Manchester has now decamped to Monaco. And pays UK HMRC ? 0% TAX And people want to vote Burnham PM??
Pete Sanford tweet mediaPete Sanford tweet media
English
63
1.7K
2.4K
25.6K
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
Connor Tomlinson
Connor Tomlinson@Con_Tomlinson·
Walking through the park with my wife. Another mother and her toddler around. Group of urban youths from local college loitering, hollering, littering, and making the park intolerable. So we leave. Car follows behind us. We let it pass. They wave a machete at us from the passenger window, and the car sped away. Filed an online crime report, providing the number plate. Police call: multiple reports about the car, which is using stolen plates. Likely connected to a local drill gang which has been seen dealing drugs to students. Received a letter, and was told the Met Police can't take the matter further. We shouldn't have to live like this. This was a nice area, once. We had our wedding photos taken in that park. These low-impulse-control miscreants shouldn't be able to ruin nice things for the rest of us. Mass incarcerations, now.
Connor Tomlinson tweet media
English
611
3K
18.4K
368K
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
Andrew Neil
Andrew Neil@afneil·
Nice to hear from you, Andy. Thanks for the by election. We live for such things. I’m in no doubt life is tough for lots of folk in Makerfield. But it’s hardly a poster child for urban squalor/deprivation. Thatcher left power in 1990. She was followed by seven years of unThatcher Major and 13 years of Labour government, of which you were a part. So it’s quite a stretch to blame her for any continuing woes. Unless we blame Labour for failing to put anything right. On the other hand the houses you were walking past were bought by the tenants under Thatcher’s right to buy scheme, which has given them some pride in place and some wealth they once could only have dreamt of accumulating. I assume your pledge to ‘renationalise housing’ does not include taking these homes back into public ownership ... even if that would constitute a proper, radical reversal of the Thatcherism you’re (some what bizarrely) campaigning against.
Andy Burnham@AndyBurnhamGM

@afneil You need to get out of London, Andrew. You’ve clearly got no idea how much people here are struggling. And, yes, a lot of it can be traced back to Margaret Thatcher.

English
556
2.6K
15.1K
1.3M
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
Jonathan Smith
Jonathan Smith@Fiat__Justitia·
In the United Kingdom, we’ve managed to achieve communism for 95% of the population. If you have kids, unless you earn more than £80,000 gross, you have the same quality of life as those on benefits. And the government managed it without a revolution. Incredible really.
English
173
707
5.8K
117.4K
𝚂𝚝𝚊𝚗𝙵𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚌 retweetledi
Pete Sanford
Pete Sanford@PeteSanford·
OH Before I Forget... Mrs Burnham is a Director for the EV Charging Company: Be.EV Who got a Contract (Large) with: TfGM = Transport for Greater Manchester BOSS: TfGM Executive Board Appointments - Andy Burnham Attached: Burnham's Apology...
Pete Sanford tweet mediaPete Sanford tweet mediaPete Sanford tweet media
Pete Sanford@PeteSanford

THE BURNHAM FILES: Why Andy Burnham Should Never Be Prime Minister... Nor His Wife... Andy Burnham, gave Public Taxpayer Loans to Daren Whitaker, founder of Renaker Build Ltd, Manchester’s dominant skyscraper developer. RENAKER NEVER ALLOCATED 20% TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING - LESS THAN 1% WAS GIVEN DAREN WHITAKER FLED TO MONACO TO AVOID PAYING UK TAX... READ ON.... A Manchester developer, took £700 million+ in taxpayer‑backed loans… built luxury towers with ZERO affordable housing… and has now officially moved to Monaco, according to Companies House filings. Public money in. No affordable homes out. And the man at the centre of it all is now living in a tax haven. How did this happen in a city crying out for homes ordinary people can actually afford? How was one developer allowed to dominate the skyline, take hundreds of millions in public support, and then disappear offshore? People deserve answers. Manchester deserves better. WHY THE SECRECY AND LOCAL/NATIONAL MEDIA SILENCE? ADVERTISING CONTRACTS - HUGE... RESEARCH NOTES: Here is the clear, sourced, political analysis of what Whitaker’s Monaco move means — and why almost nobody in the general public knows about it. 📷 1. This is politically explosive — but almost invisible to the public Most people in Greater Manchester have no idea that: • A single developer received £700m+ in taxpayer‑backed loans from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA). The Telegraph • The same developer delivered virtually zero affordable housing in the skyscrapers those loans funded (widely reported in planning scrutiny). • That developer — Daren Whitaker of Renaker — has now officially moved to Monaco, listing it as his main residence in Companies House filings. This combination is politically toxic, but it has not broken through to mainstream public consciousness. Why? Because the story is complex, technical, and buried in business pages, not front‑page headlines. 📷 2. Why this is a political problem for Andy Burnham This is not about wrongdoing — courts upheld the legality of the loans. Monaco Tribune But politics is about perception, and the optics are terrible: The narrative writes itself: “A developer gets £700m of public loans, builds luxury towers with no affordable housing, then moves to Monaco to avoid UK taxes.” Even if every step was legal, the public optics are devastating. Burnham’s vulnerabilities: • He chairs the GMCA, which approved the loans. • He has positioned himself as a champion of fairness and levelling up. • Yet the region’s biggest developer — funded by his authority — has now left the UK tax system entirely. This creates a credibility gap between Burnham’s rhetoric and the outcomes of his housing strategy. 📷 3. Why the story hasn’t exploded (yet) Despite the scale, the story has remained niche. Here’s why: A. Complexity shields it Housing investment funds, loan structures, viability assessments — these are not topics the average voter follows. B. Local media dependency Manchester’s local press is heavily reliant on: • property advertising • developer access • council press offices This creates a soft‑pedalled environment around major developers. C. No single “smoking gun” The courts ruled the loans were legal. Monaco Tribune So there is no scandal in the criminal sense — only a scandal in the public‑interest sense. D. Timing Whitaker’s move to Monaco happened after the legal scrutiny had passed, reducing media appetite. 📷 4. The deeper political issue: the GM housing model itself The GM Housing Investment Loans Fund was designed to: • accelerate development • attract private capital • regenerate the city centre But in practice, it has: • funded luxury towers • delivered minimal affordable housing • concentrated power in a single developer (Renaker) • created a dependency loop between the council and the developer Whitaker’s relocation to Monaco exposes the structural flaw: Public risk, private reward — and the private reward has now left the country. 📷 5. What this means for Labour nationally The Monaco move is being framed internationally as part of a wealth exodus under Labour’s tax changes. Monaco Tribune This creates two political narratives: Narrative 1 (Left critique): Labour is too close to developers and big money, delivering luxury housing instead of affordable homes. Narrative 2 (Right critique): Labour’s tax policies are driving wealth creators out of the UK. Whitaker’s move feeds both narratives simultaneously — a rare political double‑hit. 📷 6. Why this could still blow up later This story has all the ingredients of a future political storm: • Huge sums of public money • A single private beneficiary • No affordable housing delivered • A move to a tax haven • A mayor with national ambitions • A legal paper trail confirming Monaco residency If Burnham ever runs for national leadership, this will be resurfaced immediately. 📷 7. The bottom line This is one of the most politically sensitive housing stories in modern Manchester: A publicly funded developer, delivering luxury towers with no affordable housing, has now relocated to Monaco — confirmed by Companies House filings. It is real, sourced, and politically significant, but the public remains largely unaware because the story is complex and under‑reported.

English
77
1.9K
3.2K
71.1K