PiranPirate

I am writing to the Muslims of the UK. My family and I would like to settle in a Muslim country, the exact one yet to be determined. My neighbors and friends, who are very close to me, would like to join me, as would their families, their family's friends, and even their friends' friends... Therefore, there will be many of us in your country. Since we are all Christian, you will need to plan for the construction of churches and the closure of certain streets for our processions (rest assured, in our country it's only once a year, not five times a day!). You will also need to stock pork, bacon, and good beans in all your supermarkets to accommodate us, as we will be a minority and will need your understanding. This is OUR way of life, and you must accommodate us. We are also bringing all of our dogs with us so we will need dog parks built and tolerance as we take them for walks down your sidewalks. We would like all your religious holidays to be abolished, as they could offend the Christian community that we are. We also request permission to participate in school outings wearing our crucifixes around our necks, and to eat our ham sandwiches in the school cafeteria and at work. You will also need to provide a designated space in all your buildings where we can pray in our language, and you will need to provide a translator as we do not speak your language. Should this request be denied, could you please provide us with the addresses of the police stations so that we can file a discrimination complaint? Thank you in advance for your understanding. Oh! I almost forgot, if my children set fire to your flag if the English team wins a game, could you please be as lenient as you are here? I promise, I'll give them a good scolding... Finally, I hope your government will give us loads of benefits and free rent while we adapt to your country, without even having to work, of course, whether it takes months, years, or generations... Appreciate it!

@Steven_Swinford Why was he in Kyiv? What positions of power and influence does he retain? On whose authority is he acting? Who's paying his salary?

Breaking: Morgan McSweeney has denied claims that he “bullied” civil servants into appointing Lord Mandelson as US ambassador ahead of an appearance before MPs next week The prime minister’s former chief of staff is facing claims that he told Sir Philip Barton, the then permanent secretary at the foreign office, to “just f***ing approve” Mandelson’s appointment “I find it strange reading about a character with the same name as mine sometimes,” he told the Kyiv security conference. “I don’t recognise that character.” He said he resigned because he “took responsibility” for recommending Mandelson for the role of ambassador

@ZackPolanski - this is magnificent. Three things I can’t deny: 1. It is a video. 2. You are wearing a jacket. 3. Then you aren’t. 4. Then you are again. Unfortunately that’s where the accuracy ends. A few corrections for you: Peter Thiel is not our CEO. Alex Karp is — and has been for 20+ years. (A lifelong Democrat, for anyone keeping score.) We are not a “spyware company.” Spyware is malware. Malware is illegal. Calling a software company spyware is, technically, defamatory (don’t worry, we are not suing). We don’t build surveillance technology. We build software that helps organisations make sense of data they already hold. Not the same thing. There was no “private tour” of our HQ. There was a public photocall to which the media came. Hence, why there are so many pictures of the event. Our MOD contract is not “the biggest defence contract in UK history.” Ajax armoured vehicles = £5.5bn. Dreadnought submarines = £31bn. We’re grateful for the work, but let’s keep a sense of scale. We have no more access to NHS data than Microsoft has to the contents of your Word documents. I think you know this by now. We don’t have access to patient medical records. Same story. I agree that “nothing matters more than our health.” Which makes it worth reminding you of what Palantir’s software is actually doing in the NHS right now: ->110,000 additional operations ->15% fewer delayed hospital discharges ->7% more patients finding out within 28 days whether they have cancer Respect again for what you did with that jacket.

When, not if, Starmer goes, John Healey will be put in place. Then whoever placed Starmer as leader, will decide who they want, then put that one in place. Just as long as, like Starmer, they do as they're told they don't care who is leader. We don't know the names of the powers behind the throne, but rest assured that they're sympathetic towards China and homosexuals.

They also happen to all be Remainers... Chinese connections also need exploring.

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.

Hungary says that transgenderism etc should be taught in schools, Hungary are in defiance of this. Eu says it breaks their human rights laws so they have to teach this in the classroom. Whatever happened to the human rights of parents, not to have their children indoctrinated by the mentally ill and deluded perverts?

Throughout Mandelson's career, all those involved with the man have common threads, paedophiles, gay, China or Europhile remainers. Nothing to see here...

I actually have to praise Starmer on one thing during his performance today. Fair play to his bladder control...

Remember just a couple of years ago when Britain had influence in the Middle East? Now none, zilch, zero! Because our media and politicians pushed Antisemitism and Trump Derangement Syndrome. Why are we allowing these hateful creatures destroy our country and Western Culture?

Starmer says he wasn't told. If it was me then if I wasn't told, I'd have asked. But then, I'm not a top lawyer...and it wasn't an important appointment after all Starmer, Lammy and Cooper are doing another good impersonation of the three wise monkeys. Or are just plain lying.

So let me get this straight. The country’s wobbling like a dodgy scaffold in a gale—bills through the roof, services stretched, people grafting harder for less—and Parliament’s latest bright idea is… bringing sex toys into the chamber. You’ve got Samantha Niblett saying it’s about “openness” and education. Openness? We’re wide open already, love—our wallets, our patience, our tolerance—picked clean on a weekly basis. And then Kemi Badenoch steps in, basically asking what the hell we’re doing… and for once you can’t blame her. Because here’s the thing—this isn’t edgy, it’s embarrassing. This isn’t bold, it’s tone deaf. No one sat at home thinking, “Do you know what would really fix Britain? A demonstration kit in the House of Commons.” We don’t need props to explain how things work—we’ve had years of hands-on experience being shafted by policy, promises, and priorities that make absolutely no sense to the people paying for them. And that’s the real punchline, isn’t it? They’ll stand there talking about education and progress while the basics—actual, boring, unsexy basics—are left to rot. Roads, hospitals, policing, cost of living… all the stuff that actually matters? Bit too difficult, that. But this? Oh this they’ve got time for. It’s like watching the band play on while the ship’s taking on water—only now someone’s wheeled in a disco light and called it “forward thinking.” Sort the country out first. Then, and only then, you can start worrying about the extras. Until then, spare us the theatre. We’re not laughing with you… we’re laughing at you.

So apart from trying to give away the Chagos islands. Recognising Palestine. 13 ministerial resignations. Showing full confidence in Morgan McSweeney, Peter Mandelson, Sue Gray and Lord Ali. Blaming the far right for an island of strangers. 16 Policy U turns and rising. Having no operable warships. Not smashing the gangs. Approving a huge Chinese embassy in London. Spending 23 seconds laying a wreath in Southport only to rush back to a drinks party. Appointing an anti Muslim hostility tsar. Raising income tax. Raising inheritance tax. Raising national insurance. Raising capital gains tax, Raising council tax. Raising value added tax. Raising mansion tax. Increasing welfare spending and the minimum wage whilst freezing tax allowances. Scrapping jury trials. The only boat he has stopped is HMS dragon from crossing the channel. What has Starmer really achieved apart from breakfast clubs and the decay of our country?

The Iranian Regime: >killed 1 million Iranians since 1979 >murders critics of the Regime >denies women basic rights >bankrolls global Islamic terrorism >allows child marriage and child rape The UN: >puts them in charge of human rights, women’s rights and anti-terrorism policy

"I've been saying we are not going to be dragged into this war because I say there must be a lawful basis that matters if you're going to commit our service personnel to." -Keir Starmer Mr. Prime Minister, let me help you find one. Your own MI5 director told the public that his agency has disrupted at least 20 Iranian-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens since January 2022. Twenty plots. On British soil. Targeting dissidents, journalists, and Jewish communities in London. Your own Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee called Iran's intelligence services "ferociously well-resourced" and rated the physical threat from Iran as the highest the UK faces from any state actor, on par with Russia. Is that not lawful enough? Iran International, an independent Persian-language news channel, had to temporarily relocate its operations from London to Washington because IRGC operatives were plotting to murder its journalists in your country. The UK sanctioned members of IRGC Unit 840 for those plots. You know this. Is that not lawful enough? Iran seized Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British citizen, and held her hostage for six years in Evin Prison. She was tortured. Your own Foreign Secretary acknowledged it. Iran told her in the first weeks of captivity that she would not be released until Britain paid what Tehran wanted. That is hostage-taking under international law. Your government paid roughly $530 million to get her and other British hostages back. Iran did the same to Anoosheh Ashoori, another British citizen held for years on fabricated charges. Is that not lawful enough? Iran armed, funded, and directed Hezbollah, the organization that killed 220 US Marines in Beirut in 1983 and has carried out bombings from Buenos Aires to Bulgaria. Iran built Hamas into a military force and provided over $100 million annually to fund its operations, including the October 7 massacre. Iran trained and equipped the Houthis who shut down Red Sea shipping lanes that carry goods to British ports. Iran armed Iraqi militias that killed over 600 American and allied troops using explosively formed penetrators supplied by the IRGC's Quds Force. Iran committed war crimes propping up Assad in Syria, contributing to a conflict that generated millions of refugees, many of whom ended up in Europe and the UK. Is that not lawful enough? Iran's Quds Force, three days into this war, went on Iranian television and explicitly threatened to target Americans "in their own homes." Iran fired drones that struck RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, which is sovereign British territory. Under international law, that is an armed attack on the United Kingdom. Is that not lawful enough? Iran has pursued a nuclear weapons program in violation of its treaty obligations, lied to international inspectors for decades, and built the missile infrastructure to deliver those weapons across Europe. You say you remember the lessons of Iraq. Good. Here is a lesson worth remembering: Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Iran has spent 40 years building a global terror network, taking British hostages, plotting assassinations on British streets, and attacking British sovereign territory. The lawful basis was never the problem, Mr. Prime Minister. The will was.

Have you noticed a pattern? France, UK, Australia and Canada all simultaneously recognize Palestine at exactly the same time. France, UK, Australia and Canada all simultaneously demand a ceasefire with Hamas. France, UK, Australia and Canada all simultaneously demand a ceasefire with Iran. France, UK, Australia and Canada all simultaneously demand a two state solution. France, UK, Australia and Canada all simultaneously consistently condemn any action taken by Israel to defend itself. France, UK, Australia and Canada all simultaneously refuse to help the US in the Strait of Hormuz. France, UK, Australia and Canada all simultaneously call for Lebanon to be part of this ceasefire. Time after time after time, France, UK, Australia and Canada all simultaneously stand with terrorists and against the west.

Rachel Reeves in 2022 Funny how she would do it then .. when not in power

Ofcom has some serious questions to answer. As the media regulator stifles free speech through its draconian, overzealous enforcement of the Online Safety Act — both in the UK and the US — it is also handing out donations to its favoured news outlets. So much for impartiality. It has now been revealed that Ofcom provided £50,000 in funding to the Guardian Foundation last year. General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, has said: “It’s genuinely odd that Ofcom has given £50,000 to The Guardian when, almost alone among UK newspapers, The Guardian eschews any regulation of its content. “If you’re misrepresented by The Guardian, your only recourse is to complain to its internal ombudsman – in other words, it marks its own homework. If only Ofcom granted the same latitude to GB News and Elon Musk.” Read more below 👇

Since being a kid, I've seen it labelled as "Orange Marmalade" or Lime Marmalade" etc so it doesn't really bother me what it's called. What bothers me is that a bunch of faceless, unelected bureaucrats, are being paid vast sums of money (which I have worked hard to earn) to sit around dreaming up this crap. Then our elected government (Which also takes my hard earned money) say "What a fantastic idea" and force it on us, despite their manifesto specifically stating that it would not take us back into the eu! That's what makes my blood boil! I cannot hate these spineless traitors enough!

No one voted for: – EU rules back on our food – 76 Brussels regulations quietly re‑imposed – “Marmalade” banned unless the label says “citrus” first. But that’s Starmer’s “Brexit reset”. A country that can’t even name its own jam isn’t taking back control – it’s giving it away.

UK being made to look less relevant than little Latvia. Thank you Starmer, Cameron, et al.