Karen Tandy

Ultimately the worst thing that could have happened was to take the lead at 55 minutes!

I don't believe we got beat by a better team. We got beat by a better strategy. As much as I like him, that is on Thomas Tuchel!

Tuchel panicked. That's it.

Really chuffed Gordon scored but to take him off for Konsa felt like a really negative move.

@piersmorgan It was 55 minutes. You can't park the bus at 55 minutes against Argentina. Madness!

This has been a Tuchel tactical masterclass. Take us home, Thomas! 👊👊👊👊

I like Tuchel, 100% more than Southgate, but he got it wrong tonight. At 55 minutes, to go so deep and defensive was negative and ultimately disastrous.

I was a bit disappointed when we scored at 55 minutes. It was always going to be too deep, too defensive for too long!

Best pundit out of what's on offer, IMO is Joe Hart.

My Grandfather received the Légion d’honneur for the part he played on DDay so I find this particularly offensive. Given to the worst PM in history and the most unpatriotic PM we’ve ever had. It’s an insult, he’s an insult

First Chagos, Now Bermuda. The Reparations Lobby Has Found its Method A delegation representing fifteen Caribbean nations arrived in London this week with a demand that goes further than any reparations claim yet advanced. Caricom no longer wants only money. It wants territory. Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda are named in its new working document as holdings that must be surrendered as part of "structural economic decolonisation." Sir Hilary Beckles, who chairs the Caricom Reparations Commission, told the Telegraph that the Caribbean "remains the most colonised part of the world." He called on the King to help "break the chains of imperial governance." These are not the words of a man negotiating a settlement. They are the words of a man who believes British sovereignty itself is the crime still being committed. This should concentrate minds, because the pattern is now familiar. An international grievance is framed as a legal wrong rather than a historical one. A precedent is sought through litigation rather than through parliament. Ministers express disagreement while conceding the underlying premise. The Chagos Islands deal follows exactly this logic: agreed eighteen months ago, still unratified, and stalled only because Washington objected, not because London refused. The African Union's lawyers have said openly that they intend to replicate the strategy at the International Court of Justice. Turks and Caicos is not the Chagos Islands. It has a resident population, an economy, and a constitutional relationship with Britain that predates most member states of the United Nations. The demand to dissolve that relationship in the name of reparative justice deserves to be named for what it is: a demand for the dismantling of the country's remaining overseas presence, one ruling at a time. The parliamentary reception this claim received should trouble anyone who thought this argument confined to activist circles. The delegation's case was put to MPs at an event hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Afrikan Reparations, chaired by the Labour backbencher Bell Ribeiro-Addy. The Church of England, meanwhile, has already pledged £100 million to atone for its historic investments. Institutions that ought to defend the settled record are instead financing and platforming its revision. The case against paying reparations at all remains what it has always been. No living Briton enslaved anyone, and no living Caribbean citizen was enslaved. Colonial rule ended decades ago through a process of independence that both sides accepted as final. Turning historical wrong into perpetual financial and territorial liability, paid by people who did not commit it to people who did not suffer it, is not justice. It is a claim without an endpoint, because there is no sum, and evidently now no island, that would ever be declared sufficient. Beckles has already signalled as much. Once decolonisation is framed as unfinished business rather than a completed settlement, the demands can only grow. Britain's overseas territories are not spoils awaiting return. They are self-governing communities that have chosen, repeatedly and through referendum where asked, to remain British. Their residents are not bargaining chips in a reparations negotiation conducted over their heads by a commission in Barbados and an APPG in Westminster. If ministers wish to demonstrate they understand the stakes, they might start by saying so, plainly, rather than issuing the kind of careful non-answer that has preceded every previous concession. Bell Ribeiro-Addy and the Archbishop of Canterbury: Westminster and the Church have both lent the reparations campaign their platform.

🚨 EXCLUSIVE: TOMORROW THEY WILL SHUT THE DOOR ON INTERNET FREEDOM. Tomorrow, Minister Liz Kendall will stand in the House of Commons and officially announce a sweeping crackdown on VPNs across the United Kingdom. 🤡 The state has just published research today whining that 26% of teenagers are currently using VPNs to bypass their upcoming social media ban. But here is the massive, terrifying truth they are hiding from you! You cannot block or restrict VPNs just for children! To enforce this, the Labour uniparty will be forced to ban, monitor, or require a mandatory Digital ID passport check for every single VPN user in the country! They are using child safety as a permanent human shield to build a state-controlled internet firewall, copying the exact digital prison models used by China and North Korea. If you want to use a basic app or browse the web privately, you will soon be legally forced to upload your biometric facial scans to massive tech corporations. We are trading a failed Prime Minister for a high-tech socialist dictatorship that wants total control over what you are allowed to see and say. RT to completely blow up the UK timeline and demand our freedom back! 🔁🇬🇧🔥

Today Labour’s Gibraltar surrender deal - announced today with no debate - has once again undermined British sovereignty, repeating the mistakes of the Windsor Framework and the Chagos debacle. The terms of the deal are shocking: Spanish officials will now conduct border checks within Gibraltar. Spain can withdraw individuals’ residency in Gibraltar, even if they already live there. Goods sold in Gibraltar must comply with EU regulations. Gibraltar is now subject to a new ‘transaction tax’ to align it with the EU. And Gibraltar must adopt new EU laws or the agreement will automatically be terminated. The practical effect is that foreign officials will decide who and what can enter British territory. British citizens’ fingerprints will be taken and passports checked within our own territory. At the same time, Spain has conceded nothing about its claim to Gibraltar. No self-respecting British government should be willing to accept this. To make matters worse, Parliament and the British public have only seen the final text of this deal today, but it takes effect tomorrow. Labour have shut us out of this process and are avoiding scrutiny. A Reform Government will stand up for our national interest and overturn this one-sided, disgraceful deal. There can be no shared sovereignty between Britain and Spain. Gibraltar is British, not Spanish, and that is how it must remain. This is not up for negotiation or dilution by a thousand individual concessions. And there must be no border between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. Spanish or EU border and customs officials must not be allowed to operate in Gibraltar, or have a say in who and what can enter our territory. Border security cannot be built on conceding control to a foreign government. gov.uk/government/col…

@RossKempsell He's very camp isn't he?

Just Starmer’s Attorney General messing about in the office mocking millions of voters who want the UK to leave the ECHR to have a chance of controlling our borders and deport rapists and murderers

Rishi. Little Rishi Sunak. The boy who had his arse wiped his whole life. Given scripts to read. Told how to deceive. You learnt well, didn't you? Goldman Sachs taught you the first act. The hedge funds taught you the second. Then you came for us. For our money. For our children's future. And you took it. All of it. While your billionaire wife played non-dom games with the tax we paid. You did nothing we asked. Nothing we needed. Most of England had no voice while you were at the helm. No say. No power. Just you and your corporate friends, passing memos between departments, ten people's hands to reach the guy sitting next door, the walls of bureaucracy protecting you from ever facing the people you served. But we have a voice now. And we're dismantling the walls. Removing Labour. Removing the establishment. Removing the departments and the memos and the corporate structures that let you hide. And once we're done with them? History has such a delightful habit of remembering courtiers who thought themselves indispensable. Your performance has been fascinating, truly. The complete moral collapse in three acts. We both know how this ends. The only variable is whether you exit with some dignity intact or whether we have to narrate the full comedy of errors that brought you here. I would say break a leg for your final scene, but we are rather counting on something more permanent. Your name will look quite ornamental in the footnotes regardless. Tell us what you know, Rishi. Spill it now. The non-dom secrets. The Goldman flows. The hedge fund handlers. The real powers behind your throne. Tell us while you still have the chance to look like something other than a coward in a borrowed suit. Or don't. And wait for us to find out anyway. Your choice. But the walls are coming down. With or without your help.

How very clever you think you are, sweetheart. Posting "IT'S COMING HOME" with your little heart emojis. Cheering for England. For the flag. For the nation you've spent three years calling racist, colonial, and irredeemable. For the country you wouldn't stand for. For the anthem you wouldn't sing. For the people you called bigots for wanting borders. You hate England, Zarah. You hate everything it stands for. You hate its history. You hate its present. You hate the working-class voters who rejected your socialism. You hate the flag so much you probably need therapy when you see it at a football match. But Jude Bellingham scores, and suddenly you're Made in the West Mids? Suddenly you're one of us? Suddenly the nation you want dismantled is worth three little hearts? You're not clever, Zarah. You're transparent. A weather vane in a hijab. Spinning whichever way the wind of popularity blows. Palestine when it plays well. England when it wins. Principles as flexible as your patriotism. The England you cheer today is the England you despise tomorrow. We see you. We always have.

Mauritius Heard Burnham's Chagos Policy First. Beijing Will Be Pleased. Andy Burnham has not yet crossed the threshold of Downing Street. He has already confirmed his government's position on handing away British sovereign territory, and he did it without saying a word. A Foreign Office official told Mauritian ministers last week that the Chagos deal was unlikely to change once Burnham takes over. Mauritius learned Britain's policy under its next Prime Minister before the British public did, and before that Prime Minister had been sworn in. That ordering is the story. A civil servant, not an elected figure, confirmed to a foreign government that the surrender of the Chagos Islands, and the £35bn lease-back cost that comes with it, would continue exactly as planned. Burnham himself has said almost nothing about his foreign policy direction. The one substantive fact to emerge is that nothing changes, delivered through a briefing note to Port Louis rather than a statement to Parliament. It is not hard to see why. Jonathan Powell, the architect of the Chagos deal, stays on as Burnham's National Security Adviser. He built the framework of this agreement in a personal capacity, through his private consultancy, before he was even appointed to government. Since then his vetting status has never been confirmed. Parliament's own joint committee on national security strategy was blocked from questioning him, a restriction placed on no previous holder of the role. Every question about his interests has been met with the same three lines. Established mechanisms are in place. Such matters are sensitive. The government does not comment on individual cases. Burnham called his incoming government a fresh start. Keeping Powell in place while Powell's own deal proceeds unaltered is not a fresh start. It is the old direction, continued by the same hand, under a different name at the top of the letterhead. Mauritius itself is worth pausing on, because the Telegraph's own reporting describes it plainly as an ally of China and Iran. Handing that country strategic proximity to Diego Garcia, a base Britain shares with the United States precisely because of its military value, was never a small matter. It required Donald Trump's intervention to even pause it. That the deal now resumes, confirmed before Burnham has taken his seat, suggests the pause was tactical rather than principled. The objection was managed. It was not answered. Consider what this pattern has already produced. A spy trial collapsed because the government would not call China a threat in open court. A Chinese embassy was approved with a concealed chamber built a metre from the cables carrying the City's financial data. A Foreign Office adviser was granted access to Washington despite failing his own vetting on China and Russia grounds, warnings the Prime Minister had read and set aside. Now the Chagos deal, negotiated by a man whose own China-adjacent relationships remain undisclosed, proceeds into a new premiership as though nothing about the government has changed. Nothing has. Voters were told Burnham represented something different from Starmer. On the only foreign policy question that has surfaced so far, the answer arrived from an anonymous Whitehall meeting, not from Burnham's own mouth, and it confirmed continuity rather than change. A Prime Minister who has not yet taken office has already made his position clear on a matter of British sovereignty. He made it through an aide, to a foreign government, before making it to his own country. "It is not hard to see why Jonathan Powell, the architect of the Chagos deal, stays on as Burnham's National Security Adviser."

Isn't it strange how all of those calling Anne Widecombe a bigot are so bigoted?

Now two women pitchside! What is wrong with ITV? Why are women commentators taking over MEN'S football. Nobody wants it, male or female.

I am far likely to trust a politician who is wealthy BEFORE they entered politics, than a politician who became wealthy BECAUSE they entered politics. That is the number one difference between the left and right, both here and the US.

As long as tax payer money is not involved, I couldn't care less if Nigel has bitcoin, if he owns a string of houses, if he is a wealthy entrepreneur. In fact, a man that knows how to succeed in business is a quality that is severely lacking in our current Government.