“We need to inspect your property for illegal aliens,” one of them said.
I replied, “Alright, but whatever you do, don’t go into that field over there.”
The officer in charge exploded.
“Mister, I have the authority of the federal government behind me!” he barked, reaching into his back pocket. He yanked out a badge and shoved it in my face.
“See this fucking badge? This badge means I can go wherever I want on ANY land. No questions asked, no answers given. Am I clear? Do you understand?”
I nodded politely and said, “Be my guest.”
Then I went back to my chores.
About ten minutes later, I heard screaming. I looked up and saw six ICE agents running for their lives, being chased by my big, mean, old bull. And with every step, that bull was closing in. Fast.
It looked like they were about to get gored for sure.
So I dropped my tools, ran over to the fence, and shouted at the top of my lungs:
“YOUR BADGE! SHOW HIM YOUR FUCKING BADGE!”
ICE don't show their badges. Farmer is arrested. Bull is shot.
Have we done the local by-election results? 2 by-elections caused by Reform UK councillors elected in May resigning immediately. Both lost: 1 LD gain, 1 Con gain.
The forlorn hopefulness in your tone is exquisitely pitiful
If Trump's poll numbers don't tank after passing the Big Beautiful Bill, then there's Starmer's answer to the nation's economic woes - take the entitlement to the NHS away from a big chunk of voters.
Mostly in areas voting Labour.
No no, the poor voted for Trump to take things off the illegals. Its their welfare being taken away. [checks notes] what, its MINE that has been taken? Hang on, I'm not an illegal?
Morons, the lot of them. Similarly there is depression setting in amongst the Tesla Elon loyalists on Twitter who have realised that Trump has screwed electrification and is now coming after them. Comments like "we got played" being posted. Well duh - we saw this a mile away.
There are people whose core talent is looking, sounding and behaving like a Leader. Some call it Charisma.
They can get people to follow them anywhere, including off the cliff edge. It's a benefit to charismatic individuals, but often a disaster for everyone else.
Some don't like the idea Trump is both charismatic and a leader, but you don't just luck in to such influence over so many people.
You can not like the idea, while accepting its reality. But it's certainly true that those who are immune to his undeniable appeal find it very hard to understand how anyone can continue, against all rational evidence, to fall for it.
There is something deep in the human psyche that seems to make us prone to want to follow a strong authority figure, whether that be a god, a tribal leader, a president, a warlord or a guru. Presumably that comes from the evolutionary benefits of the protection, real or imagined, offered by allegiance to such a figure. Rationality struggles in the face of this instinct.
The world is big, complicated, and potentially deadly place.
If there's a person whose judgement you trust them it makes a lot of rational sense to trust them to make a lot of difficult decisions for you so they you don't have to.
Have we done the local by-election results? 2 by-elections caused by Reform UK councillors elected in May resigning immediately. Both lost: 1 LD gain, 1 Con gain.
They are quite similar to current polling:
Reform 5,390 votes 28.2% Labour 4,102 21.4% Conservative 3,042 15.9% Lib Dem 2,843 14.9% Green 2095 10.9% Others 2,106 8.7%.
The world is big, complicated, and potentially deadly place.
If there's a person whose judgement you trust them it makes a lot of rational sense to trust them to make a lot of difficult decisions for you so they you don't have to.
Zara Sultana last night: "Jeremy Corbyn and I will co-lead the founding of a new party"
Jeremy Corbyn, today: "The democratic foundations of a new kind of political party will soon take shape... Discussions are ongoing"
😬
It;s going to be hard for me to choose which party to despise the most: Corbyn's new party for Palestinians, or the latest iteration of the Farage Party.
We are going to see a lot of ppl claiming, understandably, that the BBB has now provided Trump w a massive ICE army.
That is incorrect.
It has provided him with the funds to TRY.
A 2017 DHS-OIG report said ICE would need to interview 500,000 ppl to get 10,000 new hires.
Not easy!
Assuming an employee costs $100,000pa, then 150billion will get you 1,500 employees for one year or 150 for ten years. You're going to need a lot more than that to go full auslander raus.
For context, the Federal Prisons Service has over 150k inmates - and an annual budget of around $8bn. The camps they're building (like "Alligator Alcatraz"), will be considerably cheaper and nastier.
The FBI has a budget of $10bn, and 38k employees.
Vice President JD Vance admits the expansion of ICE is the mainspring of the White House’s agenda. In a series of social media posts, he pushed back against worries about the president’s signature reconciliation bill. Nothing else in the bill mattered, he said — not debt, not Medicaid cuts — compared to securing “ICE money.” Now, the agency — which already acts like a secret police — will have an additional $75 billion to build detention centers, hire new agents and supercharge its operations.
Zara Sultana last night: "Jeremy Corbyn and I will co-lead the founding of a new party"
Jeremy Corbyn, today: "The democratic foundations of a new kind of political party will soon take shape... Discussions are ongoing"
😬
It;s going to be hard for me to choose which party to despise the most: Corbyn's new party for Palestinians, or the latest iteration of the Farage Party.
Horseshoe theory says they are close enough you can hate them both at the same time
If Trump's poll numbers don't tank after passing the Big Beautiful Bill, then there's Starmer's answer to the nation's economic woes - take the entitlement to the NHS away from a big chunk of voters.
Mostly in areas voting Labour.
No no, the poor voted for Trump to take things off the illegals. Its their welfare being taken away. [checks notes] what, its MINE that has been taken? Hang on, I'm not an illegal?
Morons, the lot of them. Similarly there is depression setting in amongst the Tesla Elon loyalists on Twitter who have realised that Trump has screwed electrification and is now coming after them. Comments like "we got played" being posted. Well duh - we saw this a mile away.
There are people whose core talent is looking, sounding and behaving like a Leader. Some call it Charisma.
They can get people to follow them anywhere, including off the cliff edge. It's a benefit to charismatic individuals, but often a disaster for everyone else.
Some don't like the idea Trump is both charismatic and a leader, but you don't just luck in to such influence over so many people.
You can not like the idea, while accepting its reality. But it's certainly true that those who are immune to his undeniable appeal find it very hard to understand how anyone can continue, against all rational evidence, to fall for it.
There is something deep in the human psyche that seems to make us prone to want to follow a strong authority figure, whether that be a god, a tribal leader, a president, a warlord or a guru. Presumably that comes from the evolutionary benefits of the protection, real or imagined, offered by allegiance to such a figure. Rationality struggles in the face of this instinct.
The world is big, complicated, and potentially deadly place.
If there's a person whose judgement you trust them it makes a lot of rational sense to trust them to make a lot of difficult decisions for you so they you don't have to.
"If there's a person whose judgement you trust", and it's Trump...
Have we done the local by-election results? 2 by-elections caused by Reform UK councillors elected in May resigning immediately. Both lost: 1 LD gain, 1 Con gain.
One of them apparently resigned because of a cancer diagnosis but other parties tried to make a political issue out of the fact that he'd resigned so soon after being elected.
With the LibDem gain, the Reform UK councillor was disqualified (rather than resigned), so presumably you are referring to the contest that saw a Conservative victory in Nottinghamshire?
We are going to see a lot of ppl claiming, understandably, that the BBB has now provided Trump w a massive ICE army.
That is incorrect.
It has provided him with the funds to TRY.
A 2017 DHS-OIG report said ICE would need to interview 500,000 ppl to get 10,000 new hires.
Not easy!
That's not how it's like to work, though. They will more likely just deputise a large number of thugs (along with national guards, as they're already doing in Florida). The "2017" consensus is history; this is about the exercise of executive power.
The detainment camp system will be run by the private sector prisons companies - who were big campaign contributors.
Did the SA or SS have recruitment difficulties? The level of denial is off the charts.
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
The Cloudflare "are you human" check no longer appears. So thank you to @rcs1000 and @TheScreamingEagles for the repairs, and thanks to my suppliers for viewcode v1.6471 upgrade, which allows me to defeat it but unfortunately introduced a million/billion bug. Normal service will be resumed soon. Hopefully. 😀
If Trump's poll numbers don't tank after passing the Big Beautiful Bill, then there's Starmer's answer to the nation's economic woes - take the entitlement to the NHS away from a big chunk of voters.
Mostly in areas voting Labour.
No no, the poor voted for Trump to take things off the illegals. Its their welfare being taken away. [checks notes] what, its MINE that has been taken? Hang on, I'm not an illegal?
Morons, the lot of them. Similarly there is depression setting in amongst the Tesla Elon loyalists on Twitter who have realised that Trump has screwed electrification and is now coming after them. Comments like "we got played" being posted. Well duh - we saw this a mile away.
There are people whose core talent is looking, sounding and behaving like a Leader. Some call it Charisma.
They can get people to follow them anywhere, including off the cliff edge. It's a benefit to charismatic individuals, but often a disaster for everyone else.
Some don't like the idea Trump is both charismatic and a leader, but you don't just luck in to such influence over so many people.
You can not like the idea, while accepting its reality. But it's certainly true that those who are immune to his undeniable appeal find it very hard to understand how anyone can continue, against all rational evidence, to fall for it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but AIUI the "Big Beautiful Bill" brings in immediate tax cuts for the rich, but the cuts to Medicaid etc don't take place until AFTER the 2026 elections. Howls of rage for the 2028 ones of course but suggests Trump isn't bothered about them.
14h @Grok Is the White House claim of $11T of offset revenue from tariffs and growth credible given the current volume of US imports, and most likely growth rates?
@grok The White House's $11T claim relies on optimistic assumptions: 4-5% GDP growth and $3-4T in tariff revenue over 10 years. However, with US imports at ~$3.3T annually (BEA data), a 10% tariff yields ~$330B/year theoretically, but reductions in trade volume and retaliation likely cut this to $2-3T total (per NPR/CBO). CBO forecasts avg. 1.8% growth, not 4-5%.
Credibility: Low; economists (Yahoo, Brookings) highlight an $11T gap with realistic models.
My forecast: Deficits fall to ~5% GDP short-term but rise without cuts; debt hits 130% GDP by 2035, with $3-5T total offsets from tariffs/growth.
(I've forgotten - @TSE , are we discouraged from posting twitter links?)
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I don’t think it matters either way. To those that are very political - like us - it is an obvious lie so it harms Labour. To those that aren’t very political, all they saw was the chancellor weeping because she was humiliated by events, defeat, and by her own prime minister, so it harms Labour
It was a catastrophe for Labour and that’s that. They can’t spin it
We are going to see a lot of ppl claiming, understandably, that the BBB has now provided Trump w a massive ICE army.
That is incorrect.
It has provided him with the funds to TRY.
A 2017 DHS-OIG report said ICE would need to interview 500,000 ppl to get 10,000 new hires.
Not easy!
That's not how it's like to work, though. They will more likely just deputise a large number of thugs (along with national guards, as they're already doing in Florida). The "2017" consensus is history; this is about the exercise of executive power.
The detainment camp system will be run by the private sector prisons companies - who were big campaign contributors.
Did the SA or SS have recruitment difficulties? The level of denial is off the charts.
No federal law enforcement agency has ever had problem recruiting agents. High pay, good benefits, federal level job security and status in law enforcement have seen to that.
The interview “500,000 to get 10,000” is a function of the massive application rate
“We need to inspect your property for illegal aliens,” one of them said.
I replied, “Alright, but whatever you do, don’t go into that field over there.”
The officer in charge exploded.
“Mister, I have the authority of the federal government behind me!” he barked, reaching into his back pocket. He yanked out a badge and shoved it in my face.
“See this fucking badge? This badge means I can go wherever I want on ANY land. No questions asked, no answers given. Am I clear? Do you understand?”
I nodded politely and said, “Be my guest.”
Then I went back to my chores.
About ten minutes later, I heard screaming. I looked up and saw six ICE agents running for their lives, being chased by my big, mean, old bull. And with every step, that bull was closing in. Fast.
It looked like they were about to get gored for sure.
So I dropped my tools, ran over to the fence, and shouted at the top of my lungs:
“YOUR BADGE! SHOW HIM YOUR FUCKING BADGE!”
ICE don't show their badges. Farmer is arrested. Bull is shot.
Or bull is arrested and farmer shot, it’s all the same to them.
Am in a minibus returning to Sofia from the cool green mountains
Down here in the valley it is 38C
THIRTY EIGHT C
Never mind that, I hope you're following the cricket.
I was looking forward to a nice spritzer in the cobbled piazzas* of Sophia this evening
It will be too hot to go out…
*I have no idea if Sophia has cobbled piazzas
Sofia does have some cobbled streets - bits of it feel a bit like Paris, to me. The bar at the Sense hotel over looking the cathedral does nice cocktails.
Good morning all. I don’t see much on the BBC about Reform’s bad night in yesterday’s council by-elections. It would have been different if it was the other way round. It will be easier for Reform to maintain their support with such help from the media.
Does the BBC routinely report local by-elections? Ever? You're paranoid.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service is a BBC project, which covers it I think. It created 165 jobs in local media at a time when it was going backwards, funded by the BBC.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service created up to 165 new journalism jobs to help fill a gap in the reporting of local democracy issues across the UK.
The journalists are funded by the BBC as part of its latest Charter commitment, but are employed by regional news organisations.
A total of 165 reporters are allocated to news organisations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
These organisations range from television and radio stations to online media companies and established regional newspaper groups.
Local Democracy Reporters cover top-tier local authorities, second-tier local authorities and other public service organisations. https://www.bbc.com/lnp/ldrs
The LDRS is a terrible scheme.
It's a thinly disguised subsidy to three big local newspaper groups (Reach, Newsquest, National World/MediaConcierge) so they don't have to employ any actual reporters and their own employees can just concentrate on clickbait.
The reporters are "embedded" with the local papers, so tend to take on their attitudes. That's why you now see reactionary anti-cycling clickbait regularly appearing on the local news sections of the BBC website - it's been written by LDRS reporters embedded with their local papers, and as such gets syndicated to the BBC. If you follow (for example) the tale of the seafront cycle route in Clevedon, a lot of the shock-horror reporting was done by the LDRS reporters and ended up on the BBC site.
But the big problem with the LDRS is that it takes the oxygen out of the room for genuine local reporting. There is still a real, viable, subscription-driven model for proper local news, but the only places it's working are the really big cities - basically the Mill group, London Centric and I think a couple in Bristol. A big part of that is because the LDRS is artificially preserving the legacy incumbents.
“We need to inspect your property for illegal aliens,” one of them said.
I replied, “Alright, but whatever you do, don’t go into that field over there.”
The officer in charge exploded.
“Mister, I have the authority of the federal government behind me!” he barked, reaching into his back pocket. He yanked out a badge and shoved it in my face.
“See this fucking badge? This badge means I can go wherever I want on ANY land. No questions asked, no answers given. Am I clear? Do you understand?”
I nodded politely and said, “Be my guest.”
Then I went back to my chores.
About ten minutes later, I heard screaming. I looked up and saw six ICE agents running for their lives, being chased by my big, mean, old bull. And with every step, that bull was closing in. Fast.
It looked like they were about to get gored for sure.
So I dropped my tools, ran over to the fence, and shouted at the top of my lungs:
“YOUR BADGE! SHOW HIM YOUR FUCKING BADGE!”
ICE don't show their badges. Farmer is arrested. Bull is shot.
Or bull is arrested and farmer shot, it’s all the same to them.
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
Honestly? I don't know. It would be more plausible if the "personal matter" was known, but that's not likely. One of Starmers unpleasant traits is the rapid way in which his emotions break thru and resultant mulishness, and this is more common in 2020s than i'd like.
Am in a minibus returning to Sofia from the cool green mountains
Down here in the valley it is 38C
THIRTY EIGHT C
Never mind that, I hope you're following the cricket.
I was looking forward to a nice spritzer in the cobbled piazzas* of Sophia this evening
It will be too hot to go out…
*I have no idea if Sophia has cobbled piazzas
Sofia does have some cobbled streets - bits of it feel a bit like Paris, to me. The bar at the Sense hotel over looking the cathedral does nice cocktails.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I don’t think it matters either way. To those that are very political - like us - it is an obvious lie so it harms Labour. To those that aren’t very political, all they saw was the chancellor weeping because she was humiliated by events, defeat, and by her own prime minister, so it harms Labour
It was a catastrophe for Labour and that’s that. They can’t spin it
Yes, left wing media have ripped it out of tory women for crying in the past, so it was very on brand for Sir Keir's Labour to invent, if that's what they did, a story which is impossible to ask about, & forbids criticism, whilst keeping the moral high ground on a tenuous technicality.
Am in a minibus returning to Sofia from the cool green mountains
Down here in the valley it is 38C
THIRTY EIGHT C
Never mind that, I hope you're following the cricket.
I was looking forward to a nice spritzer in the cobbled piazzas* of Sophia this evening
It will be too hot to go out…
*I have no idea if Sophia has cobbled piazzas
Sofia does have some cobbled streets - bits of it feel a bit like Paris, to me. The bar at the Sense hotel over looking the cathedral does nice cocktails.
Merzi!
It’s been a couple of years since I was there but the Sense hotel bar used to be equivalent to Mayfair.
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I think it's impossible to make that kind of assessment. If you're under a huge amount of stress, something minor like spilling coffee on your best jumper can be enough to set you off. Or she's entirely relaxed in the job but something genuinely dreadful has happened in her personal life.
I think Labour have done a remarkably good job at suppressing it as an issue - the news has already moved on and it's only on places like PB where it's still coming up. Funny how the narrative turned so quickly to the markets, even though the movement was basically immaterial - perversely it's bolstered her position by associating her presence with economic stability. I wonder if that was gamed a bit.
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I don’t think it matters either way. To those that are very political - like us - it is an obvious lie so it harms Labour. To those that aren’t very political, all they saw was the chancellor weeping because she was humiliated by events, defeat, and by her own prime minister, so it harms Labour
It was a catastrophe for Labour and that’s that. They can’t spin it
Yes, left wing media have ripped it out of tory women for crying in the past, so it was very on brand for Sir Keir's Labour to invent, if that's what they did, a story which is impossible to ask about, & forbids criticism, whilst keeping the moral high ground on a tenuous technicality.
The stupid cow cried live on TV. I was sad for her for a bit but now all these lies have put the iron in my soul. She blubbed. She’s pathetic
FWIW I thought TMay was pathetic for her self pitying blubbing as well. Stupid heifer
Thatcher - as ever - showed how to cry if you’re a lady politician. Quietly, possibly, caught by a prying camera, just a tear or two, in the back of her limo as she left Downing Street forever. She didn’t howl with anguish in the bloody Commons
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
No no no. Had George Osborne cried at PMQs the day after his economic plans were ripped to shreds, The Guardian would have been publishing columns on the difficulties middle aged men face in the 21st Century
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I think it's impossible to make that kind of assessment. If you're under a huge amount of stress, something minor like spilling coffee on your best jumper can be enough to set you off. Or she's entirely relaxed in the job but something genuinely dreadful has happened in her personal life.
I think Labour have done a remarkably good job at suppressing it as an issue - the news has already moved on and it's only on places like PB where it's still coming up. Funny how the narrative turned so quickly to the markets, even though the movement was basically immaterial - perversely it's bolstered her position by associating her presence with economic stability. I wonder if that was gamed a bit.
This is bollocks. The image of her blubbing is now etched on the public consciousness. It’s indelible
This will be Reeves forever. The chancellor that cried in the commons. I know you don’t want this to be true but it is true. It’s like Sunak in the rain but worse
..The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which scrutinises government spending, said the Home Office had failed to analyse exit checks since the skilled worker visa route was introduced in 2020 under the Conservatives. Some 1.18 million people have applied to come to the UK via this route between its launch in December 2020 and the end of 2024. The Home Office said it had inherited a "broken immigration system" and that it was working to "repair the public's trust"...
But but but Labour are in power now and are absolutely responsible for all the shithouse policies introduced by the Tories.
Must be great for the remaining Tories. All those awful policies they introduced, they just wash their hands of them and pretend they were done by Labour.
lol but thts what Labour has been doing for most of my adult life.
Leave office in a mess and then blame the Tories
Most recently "There is no money" 2010 followed by austerirty austerity in 2011
or
spend more on lock down followed by look at the size of the debt
This is one of those odd occasions where Labour have to clear up the Tory mess, and they are clueless.
Labour have gained power 6 times in the last 100 years.
1929 - Inherited a great depression and Churchill's idiotic decision to go on the Gold Standard 1945 - I'm sure you'd claim the economy was in rude health. 1974 - Oil shock and 20% inflation 2025 - dealt a terrible hand and playing it badly.
Blair inherited a great hand in hindsight apart from NHS being in its knees.
You do realise that the Tories have been in power for 32 of the last 45 years ?
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
No no no. Had George Osborne cried at PMQs the day after his economic plans were ripped to shreds, The Guardian would have been publishing columns on the difficulties middle aged men face in the 21st Century
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I think it's impossible to make that kind of assessment. If you're under a huge amount of stress, something minor like spilling coffee on your best jumper can be enough to set you off. Or she's entirely relaxed in the job but something genuinely dreadful has happened in her personal life.
I think Labour have done a remarkably good job at suppressing it as an issue - the news has already moved on and it's only on places like PB where it's still coming up. Funny how the narrative turned so quickly to the markets, even though the movement was basically immaterial - perversely it's bolstered her position by associating her presence with economic stability. I wonder if that was gamed a bit.
Anecdata suggests this has cut through to the sort of choirs, clubs that my parent's generation belong to. You know, the sort of generation with very high turnout....
..The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which scrutinises government spending, said the Home Office had failed to analyse exit checks since the skilled worker visa route was introduced in 2020 under the Conservatives. Some 1.18 million people have applied to come to the UK via this route between its launch in December 2020 and the end of 2024. The Home Office said it had inherited a "broken immigration system" and that it was working to "repair the public's trust"...
But but but Labour are in power now and are absolutely responsible for all the shithouse policies introduced by the Tories.
Must be great for the remaining Tories. All those awful policies they introduced, they just wash their hands of them and pretend they were done by Labour.
lol but thts what Labour has been doing for most of my adult life.
Leave office in a mess and then blame the Tories
Most recently "There is no money" 2010 followed by austerirty austerity in 2011
or
spend more on lock down followed by look at the size of the debt
This is one of those odd occasions where Labour have to clear up the Tory mess, and they are clueless.
Labour have gained power 6 times in the last 100 years.
1929 - Inherited a great depression and Churchill's idiotic decision to go on the Gold Standard 1945 - I'm sure you'd claim the economy was in rude health. 1974 - Oil shock and 20% inflation 2025 - dealt a terrible hand and playing it badly.
Blair inherited a great hand in hindsight apart from NHS being in its knees.
You do realise that the Tories have been in power for 32 of the last 45 years ?
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I think it's impossible to make that kind of assessment. If you're under a huge amount of stress, something minor like spilling coffee on your best jumper can be enough to set you off. Or she's entirely relaxed in the job but something genuinely dreadful has happened in her personal life.
I think Labour have done a remarkably good job at suppressing it as an issue - the news has already moved on and it's only on places like PB where it's still coming up. Funny how the narrative turned so quickly to the markets, even though the movement was basically immaterial - perversely it's bolstered her position by associating her presence with economic stability. I wonder if that was gamed a bit.
This is bollocks. The image of her blubbing is now etched on the public consciousness. It’s indelible
This will be Reeves forever. The chancellor that cried in the commons. I know you don’t want this to be true but it is true. It’s like Sunak in the rain but worse
I don't disagree, just that it looks even worse if Starmer now sacks her. She looks like she's taking the brunt of all the spending demands from Labour ministers with no support from the PM.
She could set fire to the whole thing by resigning on the basis the public finances are disastrous and she has no political backing to fix it. I think Starmer has to go in that situation lest you get Truss Mk.2.
India apparently going against the spirit of the game by having support staff throw the ball back to the fielders instead of the fielders having to run to the boundary themselves. (There isn't a law against it).
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I think it's impossible to make that kind of assessment. If you're under a huge amount of stress, something minor like spilling coffee on your best jumper can be enough to set you off. Or she's entirely relaxed in the job but something genuinely dreadful has happened in her personal life.
I think Labour have done a remarkably good job at suppressing it as an issue - the news has already moved on and it's only on places like PB where it's still coming up. Funny how the narrative turned so quickly to the markets, even though the movement was basically immaterial - perversely it's bolstered her position by associating her presence with economic stability. I wonder if that was gamed a bit.
This is bollocks. The image of her blubbing is now etched on the public consciousness. It’s indelible
This will be Reeves forever. The chancellor that cried in the commons. I know you don’t want this to be true but it is true. It’s like Sunak in the rain but worse
I don't disagree, just that it looks even worse if Starmer now sacks her. She looks like she's taking the brunt of all the spending demands from Labour ministers with no support from the PM.
She could set fire to the whole thing by resigning on the basis the public finances are disastrous and she has no political backing to fix it. I think Starmer has to go in that situation lest you get Truss Mk.2.
When is Tiny Tears doing her next Commons appearance anyway? Should we expect her to faint like a Victorian poetess during the Budget, then be revived with smelling salts?
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I think it's impossible to make that kind of assessment. If you're under a huge amount of stress, something minor like spilling coffee on your best jumper can be enough to set you off. Or she's entirely relaxed in the job but something genuinely dreadful has happened in her personal life.
I think Labour have done a remarkably good job at suppressing it as an issue - the news has already moved on and it's only on places like PB where it's still coming up. Funny how the narrative turned so quickly to the markets, even though the movement was basically immaterial - perversely it's bolstered her position by associating her presence with economic stability. I wonder if that was gamed a bit.
I don't think it is impossible, it's just a question of summing up what you believe, given the evidence. I don't believe them, but am giving a 20% chance of it being true, as I have no way of knowing. Seems implausible though, If pressed, my next price would be 15% rather than 25
It will be she is primarily remembered for though I think, despite the quite effective way Labour have made it an issue that can't be mentioned
Hmmm. Gender is a protected characteristic, is it not?
Legal action may be incoming, but it could also be deliberate provocation and / or a national policy from DOLGE or RefUK central or whatever.
It's deliberate provocation - but it highlights that if you vote reform you are going to see a lot of time (and money) wasted on what is really just performance theatre (flags, book banning and probably book destruction) to generate social media posts.
“We need to inspect your property for illegal aliens,” one of them said.
I replied, “Alright, but whatever you do, don’t go into that field over there.”
The officer in charge exploded.
“Mister, I have the authority of the federal government behind me!” he barked, reaching into his back pocket. He yanked out a badge and shoved it in my face.
“See this fucking badge? This badge means I can go wherever I want on ANY land. No questions asked, no answers given. Am I clear? Do you understand?”
I nodded politely and said, “Be my guest.”
Then I went back to my chores.
About ten minutes later, I heard screaming. I looked up and saw six ICE agents running for their lives, being chased by my big, mean, old bull. And with every step, that bull was closing in. Fast.
It looked like they were about to get gored for sure.
So I dropped my tools, ran over to the fence, and shouted at the top of my lungs:
“YOUR BADGE! SHOW HIM YOUR FUCKING BADGE!”
ICE don't show their badges. Farmer is arrested. Bull is shot.
Or bull is arrested and farmer shot, it’s all the same to them.
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I think it's impossible to make that kind of assessment. If you're under a huge amount of stress, something minor like spilling coffee on your best jumper can be enough to set you off. Or she's entirely relaxed in the job but something genuinely dreadful has happened in her personal life.
I think Labour have done a remarkably good job at suppressing it as an issue - the news has already moved on and it's only on places like PB where it's still coming up. Funny how the narrative turned so quickly to the markets, even though the movement was basically immaterial - perversely it's bolstered her position by associating her presence with economic stability. I wonder if that was gamed a bit.
Anecdata suggests this has cut through to the sort of choirs, clubs that my parent's generation belong to. You know, the sort of generation with very high turnout....
Same here in my tour group of Remainer pensioner moth-spotters (honestly it really is PB on a bus. I keep finding new parallels)
Conversation has been resolutely non political in that polite middle middle class British way (apart from the odd harrumph about the awfulness of Brexit and the daily mail) but the day Tiny Tears did her thing it dominated the dinner table for an hour. Not in a good way for Labour. Just another massive embarrassment by an embarrassing government was the mood. And these people are lefties
..The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which scrutinises government spending, said the Home Office had failed to analyse exit checks since the skilled worker visa route was introduced in 2020 under the Conservatives. Some 1.18 million people have applied to come to the UK via this route between its launch in December 2020 and the end of 2024. The Home Office said it had inherited a "broken immigration system" and that it was working to "repair the public's trust"...
But but but Labour are in power now and are absolutely responsible for all the shithouse policies introduced by the Tories.
Must be great for the remaining Tories. All those awful policies they introduced, they just wash their hands of them and pretend they were done by Labour.
lol but thts what Labour has been doing for most of my adult life.
Leave office in a mess and then blame the Tories
Most recently "There is no money" 2010 followed by austerirty austerity in 2011
or
spend more on lock down followed by look at the size of the debt
This is one of those odd occasions where Labour have to clear up the Tory mess, and they are clueless.
Labour have gained power 6 times in the last 100 years.
1929 - Inherited a great depression and Churchill's idiotic decision to go on the Gold Standard 1945 - I'm sure you'd claim the economy was in rude health. 1974 - Oil shock and 20% inflation 2025 - dealt a terrible hand and playing it badly.
Blair inherited a great hand in hindsight apart from NHS being in its knees.
You do realise that the Tories have been in power for 32 of the last 45 years ?
'97 UK infrastructure was dilapidated after years of underinvestment hence all the PFI to renew schools and hospitals. 1980s PTAs would organise parents to repair and redecorate classrooms. Clarke might have done a good job as CoE but everything else was rundown.
..The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which scrutinises government spending, said the Home Office had failed to analyse exit checks since the skilled worker visa route was introduced in 2020 under the Conservatives. Some 1.18 million people have applied to come to the UK via this route between its launch in December 2020 and the end of 2024. The Home Office said it had inherited a "broken immigration system" and that it was working to "repair the public's trust"...
But but but Labour are in power now and are absolutely responsible for all the shithouse policies introduced by the Tories.
Must be great for the remaining Tories. All those awful policies they introduced, they just wash their hands of them and pretend they were done by Labour.
lol but thts what Labour has been doing for most of my adult life.
Leave office in a mess and then blame the Tories
Most recently "There is no money" 2010 followed by austerirty austerity in 2011
or
spend more on lock down followed by look at the size of the debt
This is one of those odd occasions where Labour have to clear up the Tory mess, and they are clueless.
Labour have gained power 6 times in the last 100 years.
1929 - Inherited a great depression and Churchill's idiotic decision to go on the Gold Standard 1945 - I'm sure you'd claim the economy was in rude health. 1974 - Oil shock and 20% inflation 2025 - dealt a terrible hand and playing it badly.
Blair inherited a great hand in hindsight apart from NHS being in its knees.
You do realise that the Tories have been in power for 32 of the last 45 years ?
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I think it's impossible to make that kind of assessment. If you're under a huge amount of stress, something minor like spilling coffee on your best jumper can be enough to set you off. Or she's entirely relaxed in the job but something genuinely dreadful has happened in her personal life.
I think Labour have done a remarkably good job at suppressing it as an issue - the news has already moved on and it's only on places like PB where it's still coming up. Funny how the narrative turned so quickly to the markets, even though the movement was basically immaterial - perversely it's bolstered her position by associating her presence with economic stability. I wonder if that was gamed a bit.
This is bollocks. The image of her blubbing is now etched on the public consciousness. It’s indelible
This will be Reeves forever. The chancellor that cried in the commons. I know you don’t want this to be true but it is true. It’s like Sunak in the rain but worse
The thing that will really upset her must be those bags under her eyes - way above the Ryan Air luggage allowance.
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I think it's impossible to make that kind of assessment. If you're under a huge amount of stress, something minor like spilling coffee on your best jumper can be enough to set you off. Or she's entirely relaxed in the job but something genuinely dreadful has happened in her personal life.
I think Labour have done a remarkably good job at suppressing it as an issue - the news has already moved on and it's only on places like PB where it's still coming up. Funny how the narrative turned so quickly to the markets, even though the movement was basically immaterial - perversely it's bolstered her position by associating her presence with economic stability. I wonder if that was gamed a bit.
This is bollocks. The image of her blubbing is now etched on the public consciousness. It’s indelible
This will be Reeves forever. The chancellor that cried in the commons. I know you don’t want this to be true but it is true. It’s like Sunak in the rain but worse
The thing that will really upset her must be those bags under her eyes - way above the Ryan Air luggage allowance.
I know it's a hot friday afternoon but the dial on the misogyny meter is dangerously into the red and people can't be on more than their 4th or 5th can of Tennants...
'A council has removed all transgender-related books from the children's sections of its libraries, its leader has said.
In a post on social media, Kent County Council leader Linden Kemkaran said the books were to be removed with immediate effect in a "victory for common sense in Kent".
Paul Webb, Reform UK's communities portfolio holder who oversees libraries, said the move came after a "concerned member of the public" contacted him.
The BBC has contacted the council and Webb to find out which books have been removed. Both are yet to respond.
The Liberal Democrat leader of the opposition, Antony Hook, said: "It is bizarre that the leader of the council is making announcements on social media, rather than to the council....Defending the decision, Webb said: "In our society, children are quite rightly and properly protected from items and actions that could cause them harm – for example alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.
"My fellow Reform members and I believe that our young people should be protected from exposure to potentially harmful ideologies and beliefs such as those held by the trans lobbyists."
When the BBC asked if Reform UK had carried out an assessment to understand the impact of removing the books, Webb said: "As far as impact assessments are concerned, I would have thought that question should have been asked before these books were placed in the children's section to begin with."
Ms Kemkaran added: "Telling children they're in the wrong body is wrong and simply unacceptable."
Hook said he had written to the head of Kent library services to ask for an update on what books were to be removed.
He said: "The announcement made by Ms Kemkaran is vague. She does not specify what books she is referring to. This needs to be properly explained."
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Does anyone believe that the primary cause of Rachel Reeves’ tears on Wednesday was a personal matter, rather than one related to politics? I would say I’m 80/20 it was just to do with her day job, but quite a good and left wing ruse to make it so that what could have been an embarrassing event is now something that is impolite to mention
I think it's impossible to make that kind of assessment. If you're under a huge amount of stress, something minor like spilling coffee on your best jumper can be enough to set you off. Or she's entirely relaxed in the job but something genuinely dreadful has happened in her personal life.
I think Labour have done a remarkably good job at suppressing it as an issue - the news has already moved on and it's only on places like PB where it's still coming up. Funny how the narrative turned so quickly to the markets, even though the movement was basically immaterial - perversely it's bolstered her position by associating her presence with economic stability. I wonder if that was gamed a bit.
This is bollocks. The image of her blubbing is now etched on the public consciousness. It’s indelible
This will be Reeves forever. The chancellor that cried in the commons. I know you don’t want this to be true but it is true. It’s like Sunak in the rain but worse
The thing that will really upset her must be those bags under her eyes - way above the Ryan Air luggage allowance.
I know it's a hot friday afternoon but the dial on the misogyny meter is dangerously into the red and people can't be on more than their 4th or 5th can of Tennants...
It’s because the left is trying to play the opposite card. “You’re only being mean to her because she’s a woman doing a woman thing”
Sorry no. You can’t cry live on tv if you’re the chancellor. Doesn’t matter if you’re man, woman or transgender furry-queer. You just can’t cry on the job; it’s the one job where you can’t do that - arguably even more than the prime minister
I’d say the same if it was a chancellor exhibiting an uncontrolled male emotion - say, overt aggression. When you’re presenting the budget you’re not allowed to leap across the Commons and knee the leader of the SNP in the goolies. Much as you may want to
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
My wife doesn't often talk politics but last night she gave a refreshing different perspective on the Chancellor crying.
Her attitude was "who hasn't cried at work"?
Followed up with "why be sad on your own time"?
I agree in theory but when we give significant power over millions to people we can reasonably expect them to be more exceptional than the average person, including in leading and reassuring people. As one example we reasonably expect political leaders to put country interests over personal interests.
I dont think Reeves is done because for whatever reason she got teary, she can still have a grip on the job, but i also dont think it unfair if someone does think it a bigger deal than i do.
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
HMRC admin time as we complete the reorg of our family business operations. The process to file to strike off a business is missing a final step where the director making the application has to type in the final sequence:
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
How could they not continue to play him? Are they supposed to fire him and effectively name him on day one? As soon as he is arrested?
If no charges had been made, he would have been unjustly treated for three years. Not as unjustly treated as, say, being raped. But still.
Don't you find it convenient that he got charged 4 days after his Arsenal contract ended? Do you really think it took the police 3 years to bring charges or that they were holding back for some reason? Scum club does what scum clubs do.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
It depends on the context. Putin's welled up in public a few times:
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
How could they not continue to play him? Are they supposed to fire him and effectively name him on day one? As soon as he is arrested?
If no charges had been made, he would have been unjustly treated for three years. Not as unjustly treated as, say, being raped. But still.
Don't you find it convenient that he got charged 4 days after his Arsenal contract ended? Do you really think it took the police 3 years to bring charges or that they were holding back for some reason? Scum club does what scum clubs do.
HMRC admin time as we complete the reorg of our family business operations. The process to file to strike off a business is missing a final step where the director making the application has to type in the final sequence:
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
Sky News @SkyNews BREAKING: Former Arsenal football player Thomas Partey has been charged with five counts of rape.
The 32-year-old, of Hertfordshire, has also been charged with one count of sexual assault.
Police investigation started in February 22. Arsenal are going to have some difficult questions to answer
The difficulty for Arsenal is everyone knew who the alleged culprit was for years, but they pretended nothing was the matter. I'm not sure if that was the right decision - was there an internal investigation? Should they have made some sort of bland statement? I think they were even trying re-sign him in the last few weeks, so they've clearly just got wind of the imminent decision.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
I cry at the opening of a crisp packet. I think I'm probably still a 'man' despite this.
@HYUFD's "(with the possible exception of gay men)," above is classic.
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
How could they not continue to play him? Are they supposed to fire him and effectively name him on day one? As soon as he is arrested?
If no charges had been made, he would have been unjustly treated for three years. Not as unjustly treated as, say, being raped. But still.
There's a major problem when an investigation like this takes nearly three and a half years, and it hasn't even gone to trial. Needs to be a lot faster.
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
People get suspended in real life based on allegations.
Depends on their contract
Not in education. He'd never work again in the sector, even if found Not Guilty. From the moment of first allegation he'd have been suspended and escorted off the premises.
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Comments
I am very happy for them to continue that form
If there's a person whose judgement you trust them it makes a lot of rational sense to trust them to make a lot of difficult decisions for you so they you don't have to.
Reform 5,390 votes 28.2%
Labour 4,102 21.4%
Conservative 3,042 15.9%
Lib Dem 2,843 14.9%
Green 2095 10.9%
Others 2,106 8.7%.
Bankrupt 6 times
Convicted felon
Zara Sultana last night: "Jeremy Corbyn and I will co-lead the founding of a new party"
Jeremy Corbyn, today: "The democratic foundations of a new kind of political party will soon take shape... Discussions are ongoing"
😬
Down here in the valley it is 38C
THIRTY EIGHT C
He'll want to rename it Patriotic Beauty.
It will be too hot to go out…
*I have no idea if Sophia has cobbled piazzas
Matt Wardman - @mattwardman.bsky.social
@mattwardman
14h @Grok
Is the White House claim of $11T of offset revenue from tariffs and growth credible given the current volume of US imports, and most likely growth rates?
What is your most likely forecast?
https://x.com/mattwardman/status/1940890545154674745
@grok
The White House's $11T claim relies on optimistic assumptions: 4-5% GDP growth and $3-4T in tariff revenue over 10 years. However, with US imports at ~$3.3T annually (BEA data), a 10% tariff yields ~$330B/year theoretically, but reductions in trade volume and retaliation likely cut this to $2-3T total (per NPR/CBO). CBO forecasts avg. 1.8% growth, not 4-5%.
Credibility: Low; economists (Yahoo, Brookings) highlight an $11T gap with realistic models.
My forecast: Deficits fall to ~5% GDP short-term but rise without cuts; debt hits 130% GDP by 2035, with $3-5T total offsets from tariffs/growth.
(I've forgotten - @TSE , are we discouraged from posting twitter links?)
It was a catastrophe for Labour and that’s that. They can’t spin it
The interview “500,000 to get 10,000” is a function of the massive application rate
It's a thinly disguised subsidy to three big local newspaper groups (Reach, Newsquest, National World/MediaConcierge) so they don't have to employ any actual reporters and their own employees can just concentrate on clickbait.
The reporters are "embedded" with the local papers, so tend to take on their attitudes. That's why you now see reactionary anti-cycling clickbait regularly appearing on the local news sections of the BBC website - it's been written by LDRS reporters embedded with their local papers, and as such gets syndicated to the BBC. If you follow (for example) the tale of the seafront cycle route in Clevedon, a lot of the shock-horror reporting was done by the LDRS reporters and ended up on the BBC site.
But the big problem with the LDRS is that it takes the oxygen out of the room for genuine local reporting. There is still a real, viable, subscription-driven model for proper local news, but the only places it's working are the really big cities - basically the Mill group, London Centric and I think a couple in Bristol. A big part of that is because the LDRS is artificially preserving the legacy incumbents.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6257p2vry3o
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/04/crying-women-workplace-tears-rachel-reeves
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Legal action may be incoming, but it could also be deliberate provocation and / or a national policy from DOLGE or RefUK central or whatever.
I think Labour have done a remarkably good job at suppressing it as an issue - the news has already moved on and it's only on places like PB where it's still coming up. Funny how the narrative turned so quickly to the markets, even though the movement was basically immaterial - perversely it's bolstered her position by associating her presence with economic stability. I wonder if that was gamed a bit.
FWIW I thought TMay was pathetic for her self pitying blubbing as well. Stupid heifer
Thatcher - as ever - showed how to cry if you’re a lady politician. Quietly, possibly, caught by a prying camera, just a tear or two, in the back of her limo as she left Downing Street forever. She didn’t howl with anguish in the bloody Commons
https://x.com/UKinUSA/status/1941044312583950697
This will be Reeves forever. The chancellor that cried in the commons. I know you don’t want this to be true but it is true. It’s like Sunak in the rain but worse
1929 - Inherited a great depression and Churchill's idiotic decision to go on the Gold Standard
1945 - I'm sure you'd claim the economy was in rude health.
1974 - Oil shock and 20% inflation
2025 - dealt a terrible hand and playing it badly.
Blair inherited a great hand in hindsight apart from NHS being in its knees.
You do realise that the Tories have been in power for 32 of the last 45 years ?
Quite
She could set fire to the whole thing by resigning on the basis the public finances are disastrous and she has no political backing to fix it. I think Starmer has to go in that situation lest you get Truss Mk.2.
It will be she is primarily remembered for though I think, despite the quite effective way Labour have made it an issue that can't be mentioned
https://x.com/SCynic1/status/1941103830864900403
Conversation has been resolutely non political in that polite middle middle class British way (apart from the odd harrumph about the awfulness of Brexit and the daily mail) but the day Tiny Tears did her thing it dominated the dinner table for an hour. Not in a good way for Labour. Just another massive embarrassment by an embarrassing government was the mood. And these people are lefties
Clarke might have done a good job as CoE but everything else was rundown.
In a post on social media, Kent County Council leader Linden Kemkaran said the books were to be removed with immediate effect in a "victory for common sense in Kent".
Paul Webb, Reform UK's communities portfolio holder who oversees libraries, said the move came after a "concerned member of the public" contacted him.
The BBC has contacted the council and Webb to find out which books have been removed. Both are yet to respond.
The Liberal Democrat leader of the opposition, Antony Hook, said: "It is bizarre that the leader of the council is making announcements on social media, rather than to the council....Defending the decision, Webb said: "In our society, children are quite rightly and properly protected from items and actions that could cause them harm – for example alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.
"My fellow Reform members and I believe that our young people should be protected from exposure to potentially harmful ideologies and beliefs such as those held by the trans lobbyists."
When the BBC asked if Reform UK had carried out an assessment to understand the impact of removing the books, Webb said: "As far as impact assessments are concerned, I would have thought that question should have been asked before these books were placed in the children's section to begin with."
Ms Kemkaran added: "Telling children they're in the wrong body is wrong and simply unacceptable."
Hook said he had written to the head of Kent library services to ask for an update on what books were to be removed.
He said: "The announcement made by Ms Kemkaran is vague. She does not specify what books she is referring to. This needs to be properly explained."
Meanwhile, Labour MP for Chatham and Aylesford Tristian Osbourne has called the decision "unedifying gender baiting of the LGBT community".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6257p2vry3o#:~:text=A council has removed all,for common sense in Kent".
Her attitude was "who hasn't cried at work"?
Followed up with "why be sad on your own time"?
Sorry no. You can’t cry live on tv if you’re the chancellor. Doesn’t matter if you’re man, woman or transgender furry-queer. You just can’t cry on the job; it’s the one job where you can’t do that - arguably even more than the prime minister
I’d say the same if it was a chancellor exhibiting an uncontrolled male emotion - say, overt aggression. When you’re presenting the budget you’re not allowed to leap across the Commons and knee the leader of the SNP in the goolies. Much as you may want to
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
That's what comments sections are for mate.
Draw 2.52
India 2.54
England 5
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.245074690
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
I dont think Reeves is done because for whatever reason she got teary, she can still have a grip on the job, but i also dont think it unfair if someone does think it a bigger deal than i do.
People get suspended in real life based on allegations.
Edit - I note he's now a former Arsenal player so were things being delayed until his contract ran out?
Zero Zero Zero. Destruct. Zero.
Scum club does what scum clubs do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HYuCAc-KLQ
@HYUFD's "(with the possible exception of gay men)," above is classic.
He'd never work again in the sector, even if found Not Guilty.
From the moment of first allegation he'd have been suspended and escorted off the premises.