Best Of

Charlie Kirk’s killer was a leftist freak fired by militant trans ideology. He wanted to end Kirk’s “hatred”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/us/politics/kirk-shooting-suspect-motive-messages.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

There. Finally. An end to this nonsense

It is incredible that the left spent a week trying to gaslight us all into believing this dude was a far right Republican nutter when he actually and literally wrote “here fascist! Catch!” on his ammo

“A charging document filed by prosecutors in court said that Mr. Robinson’s mother told investigators that her son had grown more political, and that his political views had moved to the left over the last year or so. She also told the police that he had become “more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented.” Mr. Robinson’s partner, who was living with him, had been transitioning to being a woman from a man, prosecutors said”

Or maybe it took rhem a week to fake it. Given the current state of lies in the US, it's not beyond the bounds...

I think it's highly likely that he was left wing, and that his partner was trans.

On the other hand, the murderer of Melissa Hortman - Speaker of the Minessota House - and her husband was very definitely right wing. And David DePape who broke into Nancy Pelosi's house and seriously injured her husband was also very definitely right wing.

There are people in the US who will use violence to further their ideology, and I don't think it's a left-right thing.

What is genuinely shocking about the Charlie Kirk murder, though, is the extent to which his supporters seem completely unable to concieve of the possibility that there have been attacks on people of a leftist persuasion. Indeed, it's almost like these attacks never happened.

That -to me- is the genuinely shocking thing.

The latest one trillion in and none out flight has been grounded. Again

What a pitiful circus

Legally, they're doing it be the book.

Politically, they're committing seppuku.

So the man is from Eritrea which is undoubtedly a shithole. He made it to Libya where he worked and got paid for it and appears to have no complaints. He made it to France but didn't like the fact that refugees there seem to be sleeping rough so, with considerable financial help from his family he got a boat to the UK. Now, it is being alleged that he was being trafficked. Paying 1400 euros for a boar ride is a new definition of trafficked to me. At what point is he supposed to have been trafficked?

This is so ridiculous I really cannot think what the Judge is thinking. If he wanted to pursue this nonsense he could do so from France. He certainly does not need to be here.

Of course you are right but we need to have a reasonable degree of respect for due process and give people the chance to make their case even if somewhat flimsy. Otherwise we will end up like the USA deporting innocent people in shackles.
There has to be a way that our grear country can behave in a decent way without being a soft touch. I sincerely hope and believe that.

Is speaking without notes a thing still?

I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.

It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).

I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!

As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.

I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.

Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this

'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'

A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right

It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine

The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/16/basic-decency-british-people-hope-not-hate-nick-lowles-how-to-defeat-far-right

Is that so ?
It acknowledges it, but does it condone ?
.. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..

Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots

It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring

Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.

Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?

In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.

When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...

The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.

They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...

All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?

The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.

As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.

FTP...

Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson

I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?

Silly comment

He should be removed from Labour and the Lords

For what?
Writing yum yum in a birthday card?

This is hysteria.

Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson

By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.

What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country

An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.

I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.

Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend

In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.

Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.

There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult

Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now

Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).

This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.

As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.

This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.

Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.

I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.

Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.

Partygate was certainly not trivial on the doorstep. When I was canvassing in the West Country one old boy burst into tears when the topic came up.

And I am sure that you can find many similarly aghast at Mandelson - victims of childhood sexual abuse for instance. The point upthread is that there are serious issues affecting the country yet parliament is wasting three hours on this. I felt the same about partygate.

Partygate was critically important because if we have another national emergency we need people to trust the establishment when asked to make significant personal sacrifices - from going to war or abandoning homes ahead of a flood, or rationing food.

The COVID rules may have been silly*, but that was in the main an honest misjudgment. That will happen again if the big flood doesn't actually materialise, or a harvest does eventually come in. But we expect our leaders to make those decisions to the best of their ability and to abide by they own instructions.

*no indoor mixing was one of the more sensible ones IMO, particularly at the time the parties

Of course one of the silliest things was that you could work in the office all day but as soon as work stopped you could no longer mix. Which was mad. If you weren't infected between 9 and 5, 5-6 probably wasn't going to do it.

I know I am probably in a minority of one, but I genuinely think Johnson tried his best. He was not at the hedonistic parties that have come to represent partygate to the public, but I suspect a lot of people think he was.

He wasn't, but we've recently discovered that there were a bunch of additional social engagements Johnson held in breach of the rules.

Have we? Not seen that.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/08/boris-johnson-had-dinner-in-lockdown-with-peer-funding-flat-refit-files-suggest

Thin gruel - the baby shower in particular. And doesn't really change what anyone thinks of Johnson.

You don't think Johnson repeatedly breaking his own govt's rules matters, so of course you think it's thin gruel! It certainly doesn't seem like "Johnson tried his best" (your earlier claim) to me.

No, it doesn't change what anyone thinks of Johnson now. Imagine if all this had come out at the time, however! People thought the Sue Gray report was it, but there was all this other stuff going on.