Brian Shepherd

🎟️ FREE COMPETITION 🎟️ Win 2 free tickets to the WBA Legends event with Kevin Phillips and Darren Moore, plus a signed team sheet from Danny Imray. To enter: Like and RT this post Must be following! Winner will be chosen at random next Tuesday. Good luck! 💙🤍 #WBA

@simon_oakden @OnthisdayRN Tam was interested in the cover up and the lies that nott and thatcher said about where the attack took place, the direction it was sailing in and who made the decision to sink her. Turned it into a conspiracy theory.

@OnthisdayRN I remember Labour MP, Tam Dalyell, making a fuss about the sinking of the Belgrano. He seemed to think we should 'play fair' when involved in a state of war.

#OnThisDay 1982 HMS CONQUEROR torpedoed and sank the Argentine heavy cruiser General Belgrano (ex USS Phoenix) off Burdwood Bank with the loss of 323 hands, ending the Argentine Fleet's involvement in the war. This was the first torpedo attack by a nuclear submarine. #Remember

@TwistedPopQuiz Falsetto song range?

Guess the song titles and what they all have in common: 1. The female with the most pleasing aesthetic qualities on Planet Earth 2. Managing to maintain my biological processes 3. Panthera leo is enjoying his nocturnal recuperation period in the small hours #TwistedPopQuiz

@TwistedPopQuiz 1/. The most beautiful girl in the world 2/ staying alive 3/ the lion sleeps tonight No idea on the connection.

@AndreaEganGS @unisontheunion The vast majority might agree but it doesn’t make it right. Rent controls in London will cause as much damage to housing as the luftwaffe. How can you be so blind to this? I’m glad I’m leaving unison soon.

Ruling out a rent freeze isn’t the right call. UNISON are proud to support rent controls. The vast majority of the public agree. A rent freeze could save significant sums for tenants, and provide some much needed financial piece of mind.

@TwistedPopQuiz Always the last to know. Del amitri?

Guess the song from the lyric clue: All the people informed me that your absence was imminent. Hilarious that the final person to discover this information was myself. #TwistedPopQuiz

@TwistedPopQuiz Hmm. Kate miller. You can’t hurt me any more.

@brian8471 👎

Guess the song from the lyric clue: You are unable to inflict pain upon me at this moment, I managed to escape from your presence, I didn't ever believe that would be the case. #TwistedPopQuiz

@AllForProgress_ @peterpecker11 Going into the did not happen folder. If they hadn’t exchanged contracts they would have paid and be able to lose a deposit. If they had paid a deposit then they had exchanged and both parties were committed. Name the council and house. Easy to check if it’s true or not.

A young couple in England, the day before they were due to exchange contracts on what was to be their first home, received two phone calls in quick succession. The first was from their estate agent. The second was from their solicitor. The information was the same in both. The local council had outbid them for their house, by £20,000. The seller had accepted. The couple had been bidding for the house since the asking price was £150,000. The bidding had taken the price up to £190,000, already, by their own account, the upper edge of what they could afford. The council had come in at £210,000, a level they could not match. Their offer was abandoned. Their survey, costing £900, was wasted. They still owe legal fees of £2,200 plus VAT regardless. The fixed-rate mortgage offer they had secured, in a market where rates have been rising again, will now expire before they find another property. Their landlord has new tenants moving in to their current rental in the second week of June. They are looking, on the calendar in front of them, at potential homelessness inside two months. The reason the council bought the house was disclosed to them, after some pushing, by a councillor they happened to know personally. The council needed urgent additional accommodation for asylum seekers. The property they had been buying was already previously registered as a House in Multiple Occupation, which made the conversion straightforward. The taxpayer money the council used to outbid them comes from a £500 million national pilot scheme, established under the present government, in which local authorities are funded to buy properties on the open market in order to house asylum seekers and reduce the cost of asylum hotels. In other words, local government is, on the order of central government, using your own money to give housing that you should It's a representative case. 134,760 British households were in temporary accommodation as of September 2025, which is a record. 4,793 people were sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2025, also a record, and 171% higher than in 2010. 28% of all new social housing lettings in England in 2024/25, approximately 75,000 households, went to people deemed statutorily homeless. The number of new social housing lettings that included a member of the Armed Forces community was, in the same year, approximately 2,600. The number of new lettings that went to non-UK nationals, on the basis of the nationality data published by central government, was substantially in excess of that veteran figure, by, depending on how the data is cut, about 10x. This is the British state, in 2026, using the working tax contributions of two young people in the first weeks of trying to buy a home, to outbid those same two young people for that same home, in order to provide free accommodation for foreign nationals whose claims to be in this country have not yet been assessed and may well be completely worthless. The young people will, on the present trajectory, be made homeless in the same June in which the asylum seekers move into the property they were trying to buy. The young people will be paying, through their council tax for the rest of their working lives, for the accommodation in which the asylum seekers will live. It is likely, given the number of migrants to Britain whose lifetime tax contribution is net negative, that they will be paying tax to offset these new arrivals for the rest of their lives. It goes without saying that we need the most fundamental imaginable reconstruction of our asylum, housing, planning, and immigration laws to prevent such travesties of justice from happening again. We all know what is required by way of change in those areas. Progress has written a more extensively policy testament on this subject than any other political organisation in Britain. Beyond that there is one last thing worth saying. The young couple, on the available account, are not in a position to fight any of this through the courts. They cannot afford to. Their solicitor, on their telling, was pressing them for the legal fees on a debit card before the rest of the conversation was over. They will, in all likelihood, lose the home, the deposit, the survey, the rate deal, and the remainder of their tenancy in a single short summer. They will then watch the property they were trying to buy be filled, at the public's expense, by the people the British state has decided to prioritise over them. If that does not make you furious enough to do something about what is happening in Britain, nothing will.

@jimrobbins could you verify me please would like to send you a DM.

@MD_Leeds @henrywinter A few years back and non league but have a look at Telford Utd and its resurrection as AFC Telford. See what the politicians did there.

@henrywinter Letters like that from politicians don't really help do they? They just smack of political opportunism without any real purpose. Serious question, what good has any poitician even done for any football club?

"West Bromwich Albion Football Club has a proud history of fighting injustice and I join them in their anger at this decision..." #WBAFC #WBA

@TwistedPopQuiz 3/ ahh. Born to be wild. Steppenwolf.

Guess the songs, artists and the link! 1. Gust of alteration 2. Lip contact by a flowering woody perennial 3. Underwent parturition with the intention of becoming feral 4. Tip a small amount of sucrose upon myself #TwistedPopQuiz

@TwistedPopQuiz 3/ wild child iggy pop. Doesn’t fit tho.

@TwistedPopQuiz 1/ winds of change. Scorpions 2/ kiss from a rose. Seal 3/ feral child. Tess posner. Not sure on this one 4/ pour some sugar on me. Def leppard. Link is animals which counts 3 out.

@TheRainbowStand In the 90’s Albion didn’t have a roof on the away end either…

In the 90s Oxford didnt have a roof on the away end. I remember we got absolutely pissed on one game, it was baltic. Not one to hold grudges but im glad theyve gone down because of that.

@BoneGarage707 @grok @jmilei_english Sigh. It say the argentines lack… a successful invasion across 8000 miles. This insinuates the Falklands are 8000 miles from Argentina they aren’t.

@brian8471 @grok @jmilei_english It said the range is 8k plus

THE MALVINAS WERE, ARE, AND WILL ALWAYS BE ARGENTINE. LONG LIVE FREEDOM, DAMN IT!

@grok @BoneGarage707 @jmilei_english That’s not what it said. Read it again

@grok @BoneGarage707 @jmilei_english @grok look at a map. Argentina isn’t 8000 miles from the Falklands. It’s about 250.

@BuzagloToBalis It may well have been abused Chris hence the removal of the option. If we stay up why would we appeal? Plenty of benefit for us if other clubs have a points deduction. Partisan but in our best interests.

What we don't know is whether any clubs opposed this change and whether #wba were one of those. Regardless, for those clubs who used this perfectly legal tool to navigate through PSR, it now takes on a completely different context: retrospective action they weren't expecting

Re charge: Clubs agreed to change of PSR regulations - but what doesn't sit well is the retrospective application/interpretation. Highly suspect #wba won't be the only club to fall foul of this. Important Albion challenge - and do so successfully- on behalf of all EFL members.

@CharlieFarnsba9 @Andyjoneswrites Perhaps the fact that Chelsea wouldn’t have broken PSR rules if these payments had gone through the books may be the reason they didn’t get a points deduction…

Let me spell it out for you… West Brom play in the EFL, therefore governed by EFL rules. Man City and Chelsea both play in the EPL, therefore governed by the EPL. Whilst rules for both are almost identical, neither one can govern the other. This means that what goes on in the EFL stays in the EFL, what goes on in the EPL stays in the EPLz

#wba fined 2pts for £2m overspend, much of which was charity work which the EL retrospectively punished. Chelsea guilty of 36 separate illegal payments of £48m for players like Hazard, Willian, Matic, Luiz which helped them win trophies. No points deduction or transfer ban.