I'll tell you who does really surprisingly well online - and I mean online print not online video
GBNews. No kidding
Someone showed me "some figures" today. It is remarkable. They are turning into a successful FoxNews for the UK
2 million subs and 2 billion views on YouTube. They certainly fire out loads of content quite a bit of which doesn't really hit, but it seems every day now they get 1-2 videos that gets 100k's of views.
Last week I mentioned one of the SWP types in Manchester city centre wearing really expensive trainers...
Palestine Action activist wore £6,000 gown to debutante ball
Georgie Robertson, 32, the daughter of Kathy Lette, the author, and Geoffrey Robertson KC, the human rights lawyer, has gone from Cannes to the courts
The Crillon Ball is described by Tatler as the “world’s most glamorous debutante ball”. Georgie Robertson came out to society in a £6,000 gown, alongside Princess Diana’s niece Lady Kitty Spencer, and boasted afterwards of a “fairytale event in which the aristocracy rub sequinned shoulder pads with the celebritocracy”.
Fast forward to 2025 and the 32-year-old daughter of Kathy Lette, the author, and Geoffrey Robertson KC, the human rights lawyer, has swapped pearls for protest.
The former Labour press officer under Jeremy Corbyn was helping Palestine Action with its press coverage as it fought being proscribed by the government in court.
But the Democrats paid for people to go out and dig as much dirt as possible, the likes of CNN / MSNBC spent 23hrs a day trying to dig up story after story about Trump for years, but I am supposed to believe after all that, they only just found something really bad with him and Epstein (and after he has been reelected).
The definition of 'really bad' has changed
Before the election trump boasted about grabbing them by the pussy. Being Epstein's buddy was not bad.
Now trump says that even saying Epstein's name is treason.
I'll tell you who does really surprisingly well online - and I mean online print not online video
GBNews. No kidding
Someone showed me "some figures" today. It is remarkable. They are turning into a successful FoxNews for the UK
One thing they do well is getting a balance of views. It's surprising how many left-wing voices they platform given their reputation.
You mean when they have three right winger on a panel with one token left wingers? It always reminds me of those psychic shows where they'd have one skeptic who they'd turn to for 10 seconds after 10 minutes talking to about different types of spirit manifestation.
I am struggling to believe that after 12 years of the media and opposition digging into everything they can find about Trump that they some scandal with him and Epstein. I can definitely believe he wrote a birthday card, as at the time, Epstein appeared to be befriended literally everybody with any amount of money or fame, and of course Trump will instantly lie about everything.
But the Democrats paid for people to go out and dig as much dirt as possible, the likes of CNN / MSNBC spent 23hrs a day trying to dig up story after story about Trump for years, but I am supposed to believe after all that, they only just found something really bad with him and Epstein (and after he has been reelected).
It has a feel of Russiagate again about it. When Occam's Razor says, Epstein hobnobbed with all the rich and powerful, Trump was part of that set at the time, so there will of course be times when Trump was at parties with Epstein and I am sure that is embarrassing (as it is for loads of rich people). But everybody missed something really serious for 12 years?
Surely the problem for Dems is that loads of senior Dem politicians and donors are also heavily implicated, from Bill Clinton down
That was part of Mossad, sorry, Epstein's scheme - do it to everyone so no one could come after him and he had bipartisan protection
I am struggling to believe that after 12 years of the media and opposition digging into everything they can find about Trump that they some scandal with him and Epstein. I can definitely believe he wrote a birthday card, as at the time, Epstein appeared to be befriended literally everybody with any amount of money or fame, and of course Trump will instantly lie about everything.
But the Democrats paid for people to go out and dig as much dirt as possible, the likes of CNN / MSNBC spent 23hrs a day trying to dig up story after story about Trump for years, but I am supposed to believe after all that, they only just found something really bad with him and Epstein (and after he has been reelected).
It has a feel of Russiagate again about it. When Occam's Razor says, Epstein hobnobbed with all the rich and powerful, Trump was part of that set at the time, so there will of course be times when Trump was at parties with Epstein and I am sure that is embarrassing (as it is for loads of rich people). But everybody missed something really serious for 12 years?
Surely the problem for Dems is that loads of senior Dem politicians and donors are also heavily implicated, from Bill Clinton down
That was part of Mossad, sorry, Epstein's scheme - do it to everyone so no one could come after him and he had bipartisan protection
Well yes. The media have seemed incredibly incurious about this. Amazing the free pass some have got who have massively lied about how often and when they hung out with Epstein e.g. Bill Gates.
I heard one of the tech bros saying how he out of nowhere turned up in their social circles as well, always talking about investing in these start-ups, always trying to get in with the new hot thing in Silicon valley. He literally got everywhere.
I'll tell you who does really surprisingly well online - and I mean online print not online video
GBNews. No kidding
Someone showed me "some figures" today. It is remarkable. They are turning into a successful FoxNews for the UK
One thing they do well is getting a balance of views. It's surprising how many left-wing voices they platform given their reputation.
You mean when they have three right winger on a panel with one token left wingers? It always reminds me of those psychic shows where they'd have one skeptic who they'd turn to for 10 seconds after 10 minutes talking to about different types of spirit manifestation.
Given that the BBC skews centre left, C4 skews left, and Sky is basically Marxist (what happened there?!) this seems fair
I'll tell you who does really surprisingly well online - and I mean online print not online video
GBNews. No kidding
Someone showed me "some figures" today. It is remarkable. They are turning into a successful FoxNews for the UK
One thing they do well is getting a balance of views. It's surprising how many left-wing voices they platform given their reputation.
You mean when they have three right winger on a panel with one token left wingers? It always reminds me of those psychic shows where they'd have one skeptic who they'd turn to for 10 seconds after 10 minutes talking to about different types of spirit manifestation.
Given that the BBC skews centre left, C4 skews left, and Sky is basically Marxist (what happened there?!) this seems fair
Re Sky - Comcast bought them....who own the likes of MSNBC.
I am struggling to believe that after 12 years of the media and opposition digging into everything they can find about Trump that they some scandal with him and Epstein. I can definitely believe he wrote a birthday card, as at the time, Epstein appeared to be befriended literally everybody with any amount of money or fame, and of course Trump will instantly lie about everything.
But the Democrats paid for people to go out and dig as much dirt as possible, the likes of CNN / MSNBC spent 23hrs a day trying to dig up story after story about Trump for years, but I am supposed to believe after all that, they only just found something really bad with him and Epstein (and after he has been reelected).
It has a feel of Russiagate again about it. When Occam's Razor says, Epstein hobnobbed with all the rich and powerful, Trump was part of that set at the time, so there will of course be times when Trump was at parties with Epstein and I am sure that is embarrassing (as it is for loads of rich people). But everybody missed something really serious for 12 years?
Surely the problem for Dems is that loads of senior Dem politicians and donors are also heavily implicated, from Bill Clinton down
That was part of Mossad, sorry, Epstein's scheme - do it to everyone so no one could come after him and he had bipartisan protection
Well yes. The media have seemed incredibly incurious about this. Amazing the free pass some have got who have massively lied about how often and when they hung out with Epstein e.g. Bill Gates.
I heard one of the tech bros saying how he out of nowhere turned up in their social circles as well, always talking about investing in these start-ups, always trying to get in with the new hot thing in Silicon valley. He literally got everywhere.
I was quite disappointed I wasn't in his little black book
Because hundreds of Brits were and at least 3 are friends of mine
But the Democrats paid for people to go out and dig as much dirt as possible, the likes of CNN / MSNBC spent 23hrs a day trying to dig up story after story about Trump for years, but I am supposed to believe after all that, they only just found something really bad with him and Epstein (and after he has been reelected).
The definition of 'really bad' has changed
Before the election trump boasted about grabbing them by the pussy. Being Epstein's buddy was not bad.
Now trump says that even saying Epstein's name is treason.
But the Democrats paid for people to go out and dig as much dirt as possible, the likes of CNN / MSNBC spent 23hrs a day trying to dig up story after story about Trump for years, but I am supposed to believe after all that, they only just found something really bad with him and Epstein (and after he has been reelected).
The definition of 'really bad' has changed
Before the election trump boasted about grabbing them by the pussy. Being Epstein's buddy was not bad.
Now trump says that even saying Epstein's name is treason.
But the Democrats paid for people to go out and dig as much dirt as possible, the likes of CNN / MSNBC spent 23hrs a day trying to dig up story after story about Trump for years, but I am supposed to believe after all that, they only just found something really bad with him and Epstein (and after he has been reelected).
The definition of 'really bad' has changed
Before the election trump boasted about grabbing them by the pussy. Being Epstein's buddy was not bad.
Now trump says that even saying Epstein's name is treason.
But the Democrats paid for people to go out and dig as much dirt as possible, the likes of CNN / MSNBC spent 23hrs a day trying to dig up story after story about Trump for years, but I am supposed to believe after all that, they only just found something really bad with him and Epstein (and after he has been reelected).
The definition of 'really bad' has changed
Before the election trump boasted about grabbing them by the pussy. Being Epstein's buddy was not bad.
Now trump says that even saying Epstein's name is treason.
Is this some desperate attempt to get growth by people spending their life savings on tat?
more like some desperate attempt by the telegraph to retain readers by publishing any old shite
Much that I think the ReformyGraph has gone downhill and I am not a subscriber, when we have looked at this didn't we find that actually they are doing pretty well these days in terms of subscribers.
The DT has been keeping it's circ data secret since 2020, but if the 2019 figure has fallen at the same rate as the overall market, they'll now be down to 170,000 or so. Given their demographics and the number of subs that must be cancelled during probate, it could be lower still.
Except it doesn't,
For the period ending 31st December 2023, Telegraph Media Group had:
I thought there were f##ked as well over all the talk about why anybody would want to buy them, but I was corrected previously on this. Their move to digital subscriptions is apparently doing very well.
They are - afaik from the stats - going great guns in the US peddling their stuff. Hence the huge digital numbers.
@EdKrassen BREAKING: Senator Richard Durbin says that his office has obtained information that the Trump administration ordered all Epstein records that mentioned Donald Trump to be “flagged":
“According to information my office received, the FBI was pressured to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD) … on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests... My office was told that these personnel were instructed to ‘flag’ any records in which President Trump was mentioned.”
That's why Phase 2 was never released and it was called a "hoax."
@EdKrassen BREAKING: Senator Richard Durbin says that his office has obtained information that the Trump administration ordered all Epstein records that mentioned Donald Trump to be “flagged":
“According to information my office received, the FBI was pressured to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD) … on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests... My office was told that these personnel were instructed to ‘flag’ any records in which President Trump was mentioned.”
That's why Phase 2 was never released and it was called a "hoax."
Is this some desperate attempt to get growth by people spending their life savings on tat?
more like some desperate attempt by the telegraph to retain readers by publishing any old shite
Much that I think the ReformyGraph has gone downhill and I am not a subscriber, when we have looked at this didn't we find that actually they are doing pretty well these days in terms of subscribers.
The DT has been keeping it's circ data secret since 2020, but if the 2019 figure has fallen at the same rate as the overall market, they'll now be down to 170,000 or so. Given their demographics and the number of subs that must be cancelled during probate, it could be lower still.
Except it doesn't,
For the period ending 31st December 2023, Telegraph Media Group had:
I thought there were f##ked as well over all the talk about why anybody would want to buy them, but I was corrected previously on this. Their move to digital subscriptions is apparently doing very well.
They are - afaik from the stats - going great guns in the US peddling their stuff. Hence the huge digital numbers.
One of my best friends actually handles their subs and stuff, he has no need to lie to me, and he doesn't
The Telegraph is doing well and makes good money
It's weird how the public still has this perception that newspapers are dying. I guess it is because the PAPER circulations are still plunging, and they are. But they have all now made the major shift to digital, and have worked out how to make paywalls profitable (except the Groaniad, bless them)
"Print" media (we need a new word) is now a growing industry once again, in the UK. So you can make profits AND have political influence, hence the eagerness of billionaires to get in on the action. Hence someone like Paul Marshall (a truly great man) paying an apparently insane £100 MILLION for the Spectator
As politics geeks, we should all surely applaud this. Successful news outlets are a good thing. A thriving media landscape is a good thing - whatever your politics
I am starting to feel a little bit sorry for the cheating pair at the Coldplay gig. Affairs happen all the time and it's super scummy, but it's gone so viral you can't open any social media without the feeds filling with it...I literally follow omly boring AI academics on X and even that is full with oh look we used our new video diffusion model on it...
@EdKrassen BREAKING: Senator Richard Durbin says that his office has obtained information that the Trump administration ordered all Epstein records that mentioned Donald Trump to be “flagged":
“According to information my office received, the FBI was pressured to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD) … on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests... My office was told that these personnel were instructed to ‘flag’ any records in which President Trump was mentioned.”
That's why Phase 2 was never released and it was called a "hoax."
@EdKrassen BREAKING: Senator Richard Durbin says that his office has obtained information that the Trump administration ordered all Epstein records that mentioned Donald Trump to be “flagged":
“According to information my office received, the FBI was pressured to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD) … on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests... My office was told that these personnel were instructed to ‘flag’ any records in which President Trump was mentioned.”
That's why Phase 2 was never released and it was called a "hoax."
Is this some desperate attempt to get growth by people spending their life savings on tat?
more like some desperate attempt by the telegraph to retain readers by publishing any old shite
Much that I think the ReformyGraph has gone downhill and I am not a subscriber, when we have looked at this didn't we find that actually they are doing pretty well these days in terms of subscribers.
The DT has been keeping it's circ data secret since 2020, but if the 2019 figure has fallen at the same rate as the overall market, they'll now be down to 170,000 or so. Given their demographics and the number of subs that must be cancelled during probate, it could be lower still.
Except it doesn't,
For the period ending 31st December 2023, Telegraph Media Group had:
I thought there were f##ked as well over all the talk about why anybody would want to buy them, but I was corrected previously on this. Their move to digital subscriptions is apparently doing very well.
They are - afaik from the stats - going great guns in the US peddling their stuff. Hence the huge digital numbers.
One of my best friends actually handles their subs and stuff, he has no need to lie to me, and he doesn't
The Telegraph is doing well and makes good money
It's weird how the public still has this perception that newspapers are dying. I guess it is because the PAPER circulations are still plunging, and they are. But they have all now made the major shift to digital, and have worked out how to make paywalls profitable (except the Groaniad, bless them)
"Print" media (we need a new word) is now a growing industry once again, in the UK. So you can make profits AND have political influence, hence the eagerness of billionaires to get in on the action. Hence someone like Paul Marshall (a truly great man) paying an apparently insane £100 MILLION for the Spectator
As politics geeks, we should all surely applaud this. Successful news outlets are a good thing. A thriving media landscape is a good thing - whatever your politics
Do they acknowledge a substantial part of their influence is through being regurgitated by the BBC?
Is this some desperate attempt to get growth by people spending their life savings on tat?
more like some desperate attempt by the telegraph to retain readers by publishing any old shite
Much that I think the ReformyGraph has gone downhill and I am not a subscriber, when we have looked at this didn't we find that actually they are doing pretty well these days in terms of subscribers.
The DT has been keeping it's circ data secret since 2020, but if the 2019 figure has fallen at the same rate as the overall market, they'll now be down to 170,000 or so. Given their demographics and the number of subs that must be cancelled during probate, it could be lower still.
Except it doesn't,
For the period ending 31st December 2023, Telegraph Media Group had:
I thought there were f##ked as well over all the talk about why anybody would want to buy them, but I was corrected previously on this. Their move to digital subscriptions is apparently doing very well.
They are - afaik from the stats - going great guns in the US peddling their stuff. Hence the huge digital numbers.
So around 300k of those subscriptions were from acquiring the Chelsea Magazine Company, publishers of titles including The English Home, Classic Boat and Independent School Parent & similar.
Also take out free/bulk subs and are the core Telegraph titles really doing that well? This is now a couple of years out of date but will the trend really have changed that much?
Surely if there was incriminating evidence against Trump in the Epstein files the Dems would have released them in the hope it would harm his campaign . The other possibility is evidence implicates many people from both the GOP and Democrats aswell as other high profile people and releasing something aimed at just Trump would have led to calls to release the whole lot .
Is this some desperate attempt to get growth by people spending their life savings on tat?
more like some desperate attempt by the telegraph to retain readers by publishing any old shite
Much that I think the ReformyGraph has gone downhill and I am not a subscriber, when we have looked at this didn't we find that actually they are doing pretty well these days in terms of subscribers.
The DT has been keeping it's circ data secret since 2020, but if the 2019 figure has fallen at the same rate as the overall market, they'll now be down to 170,000 or so. Given their demographics and the number of subs that must be cancelled during probate, it could be lower still.
Except it doesn't,
For the period ending 31st December 2023, Telegraph Media Group had:
I thought there were f##ked as well over all the talk about why anybody would want to buy them, but I was corrected previously on this. Their move to digital subscriptions is apparently doing very well.
They are - afaik from the stats - going great guns in the US peddling their stuff. Hence the huge digital numbers.
One of my best friends actually handles their subs and stuff, he has no need to lie to me, and he doesn't
The Telegraph is doing well and makes good money
It's weird how the public still has this perception that newspapers are dying. I guess it is because the PAPER circulations are still plunging, and they are. But they have all now made the major shift to digital, and have worked out how to make paywalls profitable (except the Groaniad, bless them)
"Print" media (we need a new word) is now a growing industry once again, in the UK. So you can make profits AND have political influence, hence the eagerness of billionaires to get in on the action. Hence someone like Paul Marshall (a truly great man) paying an apparently insane £100 MILLION for the Spectator
As politics geeks, we should all surely applaud this. Successful news outlets are a good thing. A thriving media landscape is a good thing - whatever your politics
I heard that after a huge consolidation, specialist magazine likes ones for flintknappers are doing quite well, because people are willing to pay for expert insight they can trust in a world where the internet is now jammed up with absolute sludge e.g. try searching for best (insert electronic device) all you will find it loads of "Top 10" lists that are all funnels for affiliate links.
Is this some desperate attempt to get growth by people spending their life savings on tat?
more like some desperate attempt by the telegraph to retain readers by publishing any old shite
Much that I think the ReformyGraph has gone downhill and I am not a subscriber, when we have looked at this didn't we find that actually they are doing pretty well these days in terms of subscribers.
The DT has been keeping it's circ data secret since 2020, but if the 2019 figure has fallen at the same rate as the overall market, they'll now be down to 170,000 or so. Given their demographics and the number of subs that must be cancelled during probate, it could be lower still.
Except it doesn't,
For the period ending 31st December 2023, Telegraph Media Group had:
I thought there were f##ked as well over all the talk about why anybody would want to buy them, but I was corrected previously on this. Their move to digital subscriptions is apparently doing very well.
They are - afaik from the stats - going great guns in the US peddling their stuff. Hence the huge digital numbers.
So around 300k of those subscriptions were from acquiring the Chelsea Magazine Company, publishers of titles including The English Home, Classic Boat and Independent School Parent & similar.
Also take out free/bulk subs and are the core Telegraph titles really doing that well? This is now a couple of years out of date but will the trend really have changed that much?
I've just told you I have a good friend that actually runs their subs. When things are bad, he says, when they're, good he says. I also have multiple friends in the industry
Plus there is this direct evidence - they made an increased profit in 2023 (but there was an exceptional loan that skewed the accounts)
"Turnover at Telegraph Media Group grew £13.8m to £268m, representing a 5.4% increase. Operating profit excluding-exceptional items — including the £277.6m provision — rose from £40.1m to £54.2m, a 35.2% increase."
Is this some desperate attempt to get growth by people spending their life savings on tat?
more like some desperate attempt by the telegraph to retain readers by publishing any old shite
Much that I think the ReformyGraph has gone downhill and I am not a subscriber, when we have looked at this didn't we find that actually they are doing pretty well these days in terms of subscribers.
The DT has been keeping it's circ data secret since 2020, but if the 2019 figure has fallen at the same rate as the overall market, they'll now be down to 170,000 or so. Given their demographics and the number of subs that must be cancelled during probate, it could be lower still.
Except it doesn't,
For the period ending 31st December 2023, Telegraph Media Group had:
I thought there were f##ked as well over all the talk about why anybody would want to buy them, but I was corrected previously on this. Their move to digital subscriptions is apparently doing very well.
They are - afaik from the stats - going great guns in the US peddling their stuff. Hence the huge digital numbers.
One of my best friends actually handles their subs and stuff, he has no need to lie to me, and he doesn't
The Telegraph is doing well and makes good money
It's weird how the public still has this perception that newspapers are dying. I guess it is because the PAPER circulations are still plunging, and they are. But they have all now made the major shift to digital, and have worked out how to make paywalls profitable (except the Groaniad, bless them)
"Print" media (we need a new word) is now a growing industry once again, in the UK. So you can make profits AND have political influence, hence the eagerness of billionaires to get in on the action. Hence someone like Paul Marshall (a truly great man) paying an apparently insane £100 MILLION for the Spectator
As politics geeks, we should all surely applaud this. Successful news outlets are a good thing. A thriving media landscape is a good thing - whatever your politics
I heard that after a huge consolidation, specialist magazine likes ones for flintknappers are doing quite well, because people are willing to pay for expert insight they can trust in a world where the internet is now jammed up with absolute sludge e.g. try searching for best (insert electronic device) all you will find it loads of "Top 10" lists that are all funnels for affiliate links.
I've also heard this
I recently spent a week in an absurd 5 star hotel in the Philippines with a senior editor of a well known "Interiors" magazine
I was really quite surprised when she told me
1. Their circulation (print and digital) 2. Their profit 3. How much money she made
Given we are getting the drip drip of these stories every day, it seems likely the media have all of this ready to go.
Sorry you say what....
"There was a dramatic change in the criteria last November, when High Court judge Mrs Justice Yip ruled, in a case brought against the Foreign Office by an Afghan already living in the UK, that family members did not have to have a blood or legal connection to the applicant."
Given we are getting the drip drip of these stories every day, it seems likely the media have all of this ready to go.
Sorry you say what....
"There was a dramatic change in the criteria last November, when High Court judge Mrs Justice Yip ruled, in a case brought against the Foreign Office by an Afghan already living in the UK, that family members did not have to have a blood or legal connection to the applicant."
This is open to all sort of abuses.
Primary legislation should have been changed the next day to tighten up the definition of a dependent. With a majority of over a hundred Starmer should be able to get this sort of stuff through both houses in about a week.
Given we are getting the drip drip of these stories every day, it seems likely the media have all of this ready to go.
The details of the story are even worse
We could, theoretically, end up with 100,000+ coming here. And they will probably all sue us for the "data breach"
Let's face it pretty much anyone who makes it here from Afghanistan qualifies for asylum. It is a complete shit hole run by utter lunatics who are happy to kill anyone who does not share their lunacy. And we can't send people back there because they would be at risk because running away from the loonies indicates that you don't completely share their nuttiness.
So, under the rules, if they get here they get to stay here. And that will remain the case until we finally accept these rules are stupid and unsustainable.
Given we are getting the drip drip of these stories every day, it seems likely the media have all of this ready to go.
Sorry you say what....
"There was a dramatic change in the criteria last November, when High Court judge Mrs Justice Yip ruled, in a case brought against the Foreign Office by an Afghan already living in the UK, that family members did not have to have a blood or legal connection to the applicant."
This is open to all sort of abuses.
Primary legislation should have been changed the next day to tighten up the definition of a dependent. With a majority of over a hundred Starmer should be able to get this sort of stuff through both houses in about a week.
He doesn't want to. He could - as you rightly say - but he doesn't. Because he's a lefty human rights lawyer and he believes in open borders, or he actively hates Britain. One or the other. Or both
She is my wife, my second wife, my girlfriend, other my girlfriend, he is my girlfriends husband, these are my girlfriends husbands parents, those 27 are all our children and that bloke, part of the family, he looks after our goats. We are as you say in UK, a blended family.
Given we are getting the drip drip of these stories every day, it seems likely the media have all of this ready to go.
The details of the story are even worse
We could, theoretically, end up with 100,000+ coming here. And they will probably all sue us for the "data breach"
Let's face it pretty much anyone who makes it here from Afghanistan qualifies for asylum. It is a complete shit hole run by utter lunatics who are happy to kill anyone who does not share their lunacy. And we can't send people back there because they would be at risk because running away from the loonies indicates that you don't completely share their nuttiness.
So, under the rules, if they get here they get to stay here. And that will remain the case until we finally accept these rules are stupid and unsustainable.
Well then stop pussyfooting around and saying "oh this isn't so bad after all"
The Afghan scandal is an absolute catastrophe for our democracy, and possibly for the British people. I've explained why, and we are now seeing Why
Given we are getting the drip drip of these stories every day, it seems likely the media have all of this ready to go.
Sorry you say what....
"There was a dramatic change in the criteria last November, when High Court judge Mrs Justice Yip ruled, in a case brought against the Foreign Office by an Afghan already living in the UK, that family members did not have to have a blood or legal connection to the applicant."
This is open to all sort of abuses.
Primary legislation should have been changed the next day to tighten up the definition of a dependent. With a majority of over a hundred Starmer should be able to get this sort of stuff through both houses in about a week.
He doesn't want to. He could - as you rightly say - but he doesn't. Because he's a lefty human rights lawyer and he believes in open borders, or he actively hates Britain. One or the other. Or both
Not very worried about become an Island of Strangers....
Given we are getting the drip drip of these stories every day, it seems likely the media have all of this ready to go.
The details of the story are even worse
We could, theoretically, end up with 100,000+ coming here. And they will probably all sue us for the "data breach"
Let's face it pretty much anyone who makes it here from Afghanistan qualifies for asylum. It is a complete shit hole run by utter lunatics who are happy to kill anyone who does not share their lunacy. And we can't send people back there because they would be at risk because running away from the loonies indicates that you don't completely share their nuttiness.
So, under the rules, if they get here they get to stay here. And that will remain the case until we finally accept these rules are stupid and unsustainable.
Well then stop pussyfooting around and saying "oh this isn't so bad after all"
The Afghan scandal is an absolute catastrophe for our democracy, and possibly for the British people. I've explained why, and we are now seeing Why
No, the Afghan scandal is barely a shadow of the reason why this is nuts. Our asylum rules are just absurd. This applies not only to Afghanistan but to all the other shit holes in the world.
Iran are about to kick 4m Afghans out. How many tens of thousands of them are going to end up here? Quite a number and they won't need some government scheme to qualify.
There are legitimate concerns about this use of injunctions by the government to hide what they are doing but the big picture is that the UN Convention on Refugees is no longer fit for purpose and we should withdraw from it.
Just watched Le Mans 66 for the umpteenth time with Matt Damon and Christian Bale. Only decent motor racing film, but then I am biased as I have a replica Cobra 427 which appears quite a bit (obviously not as much as the GT40). Especially the very last scene as Shelby drives away from Miles' house.
Best bit is when Shelby takes Henry Ford for a ride in the GT40 ("it is at this point they spoil their pants" is quite a good quote)
But the biggest hole is that none of it resembles the politics of today. Angad’s race is vaguely referenced but there is no mention of the big issues of our day, including immigration and the connection between race and Britishness, with all the undertones that brings. So it becomes hard to suspend disbelief as Angad rises and rises to power.
As if a brown bloke would be able to rise and rise swiftly and find themselves in charge even in modern Britain....and virtually nobody care they were brown. Obviously totally unrealistic fantasy writing.
I am struggling to believe that after 12 years of the media and opposition digging into everything they can find about Trump that they some scandal with him and Epstein. I can definitely believe he wrote a birthday card, as at the time, Epstein appeared to be befriended literally everybody with any amount of money or fame, and of course Trump will instantly lie about everything.
But the Democrats paid for people to go out and dig as much dirt as possible, the likes of CNN / MSNBC spent 23hrs a day trying to dig up story after story about Trump for years, but I am supposed to believe after all that, they only just found something really bad with him and Epstein (and after he has been reelected).
It has a feel of Russiagate again about it. When Occam's Razor says, Epstein hobnobbed with all the rich and powerful, Trump was part of that set at the time, so there will of course be times when Trump was at parties with Epstein and I am sure that is embarrassing (as it is for loads of rich people). But everybody missed something really serious for 12 years?
Surely the problem for Dems is that loads of senior Dem politicians and donors are also heavily implicated, from Bill Clinton down
That was part of Mossad, sorry, Epstein's scheme - do it to everyone so no one could come after him and he had bipartisan protection
What's the problem ?
Just realer the files and deal with the guilty individuals.
That's the Dem position. If it means (hypothetically) Clinton gets included, so what ?
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
Good news for the CEO caught cheating at the Coldplay gig
He doesn't work for NHS Fife...
What a can of worms that’s turning out to be,
You are being polite. It is a complete and utter fuck up.
I simply do not understand why they do not realise there is an obvious conflict of interest here between the interests of NHS Fife and Dr U. My guess is that there is no sensible instructing solicitor with the intelligence, competence or courage to say so and insist on different legal teams plus no intelligent, competent or courageous client to listen to and act on such advice.
It takes a special sort of incompetence to issue 4 versions of a statement which initially defames counsel for the nurse and a third party, pisses off the Information Commissioner who is now considering whether NHS Fife are in contempt and have breached undertakings they gave to him, appears to have been issued without its own barrister first being made aware, in the middle of live proceedings and reveals that the reason the hearing was transferred to Dundee was because of threats to the nurse and her legal team.
If NHS Fife conceded at this point after the outcome of the disciplinary hearing they could at least say "well, we had a disciplinary hearing, the outcome is what it is so there is no point to the employment hearing plus with the SC decision we will take steps to comply with the law". It doesn't dwell on the very many faults in their handling of the matter but it would be a broadly sensible way to bring the matter to a close.
But of course none of this would suit Dr U because it would mean that his evidence had been rejected, his honesty put in question and he would not be able to use the ladies' facilities. Plus there would be the issue of legal costs. So he has every interest in continuing to fight whereas Fife - if sensibly advised (a bloody big "if" to be fair) - does not.
I also suspect that one reason why Fife is continuing is because to concede would be to admit the incompetence and malice of some of their senior officials, all of whom have an interest in continuing to justify themselves and throw mud at Sandie P.
Good news for the CEO caught cheating at the Coldplay gig
He doesn't work for NHS Fife...
What a can of worms that’s turning out to be,
You are being polite. It is a complete and utter fuck up.
I simply do not understand why they do not realise there is an obvious conflict of interest here between the interests of NHS Fife and Dr U. My guess is that there is no sensible instructing solicitor with the intelligence, competence or courage to say so and insist on different legal teams plus no intelligent, competent or courageous client to listen to and act on such advice.
It takes a special sort of incompetence to issue 4 versions of a statement which initially defames counsel for the nurse and a third party, pisses off the Information Commissioner who is now considering whether NHS Fife are in contempt and have breached undertakings they gave to him, appears to have been issued without its own barrister first being made aware, in the middle of live proceedings and reveals that the reason the hearing was transferred to Dundee was because of threats to the nurse and her legal team.
If NHS Fife conceded at this point after the outcome of the disciplinary hearing they could at least say "well, we had a disciplinary hearing, the outcome is what it is so there is no point to the employment hearing plus with the SC decision we will take steps to comply with the law". It doesn't dwell on the very many faults in their handling of the matter but it would be a broadly sensible way to bring the matter to a close.
But of course none of this would suit Dr U because it would mean that his evidence had been rejected, his honesty put in question and he would not be able to use the ladies' facilities. Plus there would be the issue of legal costs. So he has every interest in continuing to fight whereas Fife - if sensibly advised (a bloody big "if" to be fair) - does not.
I also suspect that one reason why Fife is continuing is because to concede would be to admit the incompetence and malice of some of their senior officials, all of whom have an interest in continuing to justify themselves and throw mud at Sandie P.
But it is somehow impossible for us to do this, because reasons
The government and judiciary are, together, steering Britain into a very dark place
I don't believe for a moment that our courts would accept that it was safe to return them. Look at the decisions we had on Rwanda, a positive paradise by comparison.
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
I'm struggling to keep up to be honest. Where does the figure of 100K come from?
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
I'm struggling to keep up to be honest. Where does the figure of 100K come from?
I am late to this matter perhaps but this afternoon PB went a bit strange. And then I am just back after a gap and it appears to be back to normal (eg typeface black not pale grey). Did someone turn it off and turn it on again?
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025, according to newly published figures.
The Home Office's annual accounts, external show £2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about £5.77m per day, down from £3bn or £8.3m per day, the previous year.
Data obtained by BBC Verify shows the saving has been driven by a reduction in the average nightly cost per person housed, after a government move to use cheaper forms of accommodation and room sharing.
You know who did claim to have been at uni with the Unabomber ?
Q: "On Tuesday the president told a very detailed story about his uncle, John Trump, and Theodore Kaczynski, the late Unabomber. He said Dr. Trump taught Ted Kaczynski. Ted Kaczynski was not identified as the Unabomber until 1996, 11 years after John Trump passed away. It would have been impossible for John Trump to have ever discussed the Unabomber with the president. So what was he talking about?"
And the guy who "never draws pictures" is an incessant doodler. I suppose he must say truthful things occasionally. Nobody can lie the whole time surely.
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
I'm struggling to keep up to be honest. Where does the figure of 100K come from?
Because it is now emerging that the afghans are bringing over huge numbers of dependants, so it’s just maths
A guy today (a journalist on top of this story) told me that he reckoned another 10,000 are eligible to come (on top of those already here). Each one of them is allowed to bring dependants
You easily reach 50-100,000 that way
Btw the journalist who told me this is in FAVOUR of the scheme. Says we owe it to them even if it’s painful and expensive
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025, according to newly published figures.
The Home Office's annual accounts, external show £2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about £5.77m per day, down from £3bn or £8.3m per day, the previous year.
Data obtained by BBC Verify shows the saving has been driven by a reduction in the average nightly cost per person housed, after a government move to use cheaper forms of accommodation and room sharing.
Maybe they are using your logic and not counting hotels that are no longer operating as hotels.
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
I'm struggling to keep up to be honest. Where does the figure of 100K come from?
Leon's fevered imagination.
I will be gobsmacked if only 100k of the 4m about to be expelled from Iran end up here. Where I disagree with @Leon is that I don't see this as an absurd overreaction to a leak (the Taliban took over the entire Afghan government FFS, do we really think they did not know who was in their own special forces??) but a consequence of a doomed asylum policy.
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025, according to newly published figures.
The Home Office's annual accounts, external show £2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about £5.77m per day, down from £3bn or £8.3m per day, the previous year.
Data obtained by BBC Verify shows the saving has been driven by a reduction in the average nightly cost per person housed, after a government move to use cheaper forms of accommodation and room sharing.
Maybe they are using your logic and not counting hotels that are no longer operating as hotels.
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025, according to newly published figures.
The Home Office's annual accounts, external show £2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about £5.77m per day, down from £3bn or £8.3m per day, the previous year.
Data obtained by BBC Verify shows the saving has been driven by a reduction in the average nightly cost per person housed, after a government move to use cheaper forms of accommodation and room sharing.
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025, according to newly published figures.
The Home Office's annual accounts, external show £2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about £5.77m per day, down from £3bn or £8.3m per day, the previous year.
Data obtained by BBC Verify shows the saving has been driven by a reduction in the average nightly cost per person housed, after a government move to use cheaper forms of accommodation and room sharing.
And the following paragraph?
But Dr Peter Walsh, from the Migration Observatory think tank at Oxford University, warned that the surge in small boat crossings seen since March could lead to a renewed reliance on hotels.
"I don't think hotels are going away anytime soon based on current trends," he said.
I remain perplexed by the implied unwillingness of the caring, empathetic female doctors in the ED to share their changing facilities with a 6ft 2 man who thinks he is a women, yet say nothing to managers who are throwing the book at a nurse who said no.
I noticed that the Dundee Courier has noticed that NHS Fife have issued a statement about the Information Connoisseur's response.
NHS Fife's production of The Operating Theatre of The Absurd goes on for another run next week.
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
I'm struggling to keep up to be honest. Where does the figure of 100K come from?
Because it is now emerging that the afghans are bringing over huge numbers of dependants, so it’s just maths
A guy today (a journalist on top of this story) told me that he reckoned another 10,000 are eligible to come (on top of those already here). Each one of them is allowed to bring dependants
You easily reach 50-100,000 that way
Btw the journalist who told me this is in FAVOUR of the scheme. Says we owe it to them even if it’s painful and expensive
There's acres of coverage on all this but no one ever seems to ask why the f we were there in the first place.
And I would also like to know what has happened to the 1000s of Afghans who helped the US (far bigger) military? Have they been given asylum in the US in last two years? If so, ICE will shortly be sending them back.
I am starting to feel a little bit sorry for the cheating pair at the Coldplay gig. Affairs happen all the time and it's super scummy, but it's gone so viral you can't open any social media without the feeds filling with it...I literally follow omly boring AI academics on X and even that is full with oh look we used our new video diffusion model on it...
Yes. Knowing when to not mention something, when to move on quickly, knowing when there is something to see but you don't know the story so you haven't seen it, knowing how to make sure you don't make something worse for someone. Lost arts perhaps.
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
I'm struggling to keep up to be honest. Where does the figure of 100K come from?
Leon's fevered imagination.
I will be gobsmacked if only 100k of the 4m about to be expelled from Iran end up here. Where I disagree with @Leon is that I don't see this as an absurd overreaction to a leak (the Taliban took over the entire Afghan government FFS, do we really think they did not know who was in their own special forces??) but a consequence of a doomed asylum policy.
The total number of Afghan-born people in the UK, across all possible routes of arrival (the resettlement programme + came over on small boats + moved here through regular means + etc.), is only about 100k. The idea that that number will now more than double seems dubious.
I remain perplexed by the implied unwillingness of the caring, empathetic female doctors in the ED to share their changing facilities with a 6ft 2 man who thinks he is a women, yet say nothing to managers who are throwing the book at a nurse who said no.
I noticed that the Dundee Courier has noticed that NHS Fife have issued a statement about the Information Connoisseur's response.
NHS Fife's production of The Operating Theatre of The Absurd goes on for another run next week.
The Information Connoisseur. I absolutely love it.
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
I'm struggling to keep up to be honest. Where does the figure of 100K come from?
Because it is now emerging that the afghans are bringing over huge numbers of dependants, so it’s just maths
A guy today (a journalist on top of this story) told me that he reckoned another 10,000 are eligible to come (on top of those already here). Each one of them is allowed to bring dependants
You easily reach 50-100,000 that way
Btw the journalist who told me this is in FAVOUR of the scheme. Says we owe it to them even if it’s painful and expensive
There's acres of coverage on all this but no one ever seems to ask why the f we were there in the first place.
And I would also like to know what has happened to the 1000s of Afghans who helped the US (far bigger) military? Have they been given asylum in the US in last two years? If so, ICE will shortly be sending them back.
The US did have a similar scheme and about 200k Afghans went over to the US through it.
Why were we there in the first place? 9/11 and the only time NATO's Article 5 has been invoked.
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
I'm struggling to keep up to be honest. Where does the figure of 100K come from?
Leon's fevered imagination.
I will be gobsmacked if only 100k of the 4m about to be expelled from Iran end up here. Where I disagree with @Leon is that I don't see this as an absurd overreaction to a leak (the Taliban took over the entire Afghan government FFS, do we really think they did not know who was in their own special forces??) but a consequence of a doomed asylum policy.
The total number of Afghan-born people in the UK, across all possible routes of arrival (the resettlement programme + came over on small boats + moved here through regular means + etc.), is only about 100k. The idea that that number will now more than double seems dubious.
Not if 4m get put out of Iran. But not as a consequence of government policy and ineptitude I agree.
Sir Keir Starmer is looking at creating a “Department for Downing Street” in an attempt to stop dysfunction at the centre of the Government. The shake-up would see a senior civil servant appointed to a lead role and scores of other officials drafted in, strengthening the Prime Minister’s ability to drive through change in Whitehall.
We have obviously given up on Pat McFadden fiction of cutting the size of government.
Say what you want about Hamas but they could teach us a thing or two about handling big infrastructure projects. They managed to construct a network of tunnels in Gaza bigger than the London Underground on a shoestring budget and were so discreet that none of the NGOs flooding Gaza knew anything about it, even with military bases adjacent to hospitals and schools. If you wanted to get something done in spite of the nimby protesters you'd be best hiring Hamas builders.
Sir Keir Starmer is looking at creating a “Department for Downing Street” in an attempt to stop dysfunction at the centre of the Government. The shake-up would see a senior civil servant appointed to a lead role and scores of other officials drafted in, strengthening the Prime Minister’s ability to drive through change in Whitehall.
We have obviously given up on Pat McFadden fiction of cutting the size of government.
Surely we need a department of Administrative Affairs.
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
I'm struggling to keep up to be honest. Where does the figure of 100K come from?
Leon's fevered imagination.
I will be gobsmacked if only 100k of the 4m about to be expelled from Iran end up here. Where I disagree with @Leon is that I don't see this as an absurd overreaction to a leak (the Taliban took over the entire Afghan government FFS, do we really think they did not know who was in their own special forces??) but a consequence of a doomed asylum policy.
The total number of Afghan-born people in the UK, across all possible routes of arrival (the resettlement programme + came over on small boats + moved here through regular means + etc.), is only about 100k. The idea that that number will now more than double seems dubious.
Not if 4m get put out of Iran. But not as a consequence of government policy and ineptitude I agree.
They've been kicked out of Iran and sent back to Afghanistan. Iran hasn't sent them to Calais.
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
I'm struggling to keep up to be honest. Where does the figure of 100K come from?
Leon's fevered imagination.
I will be gobsmacked if only 100k of the 4m about to be expelled from Iran end up here. Where I disagree with @Leon is that I don't see this as an absurd overreaction to a leak (the Taliban took over the entire Afghan government FFS, do we really think they did not know who was in their own special forces??) but a consequence of a doomed asylum policy.
The total number of Afghan-born people in the UK, across all possible routes of arrival (the resettlement programme + came over on small boats + moved here through regular means + etc.), is only about 100k. The idea that that number will now more than double seems dubious.
Not if 4m get put out of Iran. But not as a consequence of government policy and ineptitude I agree.
They've been kicked out of Iran and sent back to Afghanistan. Iran hasn't sent them to Calais.
Not yet they haven't. And they are not going to stay there. They have left the country once already.
So, who's ready for the flash floods tomorrow (across London and parts of the South East)? Batten down those hatches. Maybe close those windows you opened in a desperate bid to get a breeze through your house.
Comments
(PS: It's in the 3 dots menu.)
Palestine Action activist wore £6,000 gown to debutante ball
Georgie Robertson, 32, the daughter of Kathy Lette, the author, and Geoffrey Robertson KC, the human rights lawyer, has gone from Cannes to the courts
The Crillon Ball is described by Tatler as the “world’s most glamorous debutante ball”. Georgie Robertson came out to society in a £6,000 gown, alongside Princess Diana’s niece Lady Kitty Spencer, and boasted afterwards of a “fairytale event in which the aristocracy rub sequinned shoulder pads with the celebritocracy”.
Fast forward to 2025 and the 32-year-old daughter of Kathy Lette, the author, and Geoffrey Robertson KC, the human rights lawyer, has swapped pearls for protest.
The former Labour press officer under Jeremy Corbyn was helping Palestine Action with its press coverage as it fought being proscribed by the government in court.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/tatler-palestine-action-georgie-robertson-h8p3mjrq9
Before the election trump boasted about grabbing them by the pussy. Being Epstein's buddy was not bad.
Now trump says that even saying Epstein's name is treason.
Now being Epstein's buddy is really bad for trump
Edit - Weird, it appears sometimes when I refresh and not others.
That was part of Mossad, sorry, Epstein's scheme - do it to everyone so no one could come after him and he had bipartisan protection
I heard one of the tech bros saying how he out of nowhere turned up in their social circles as well, always talking about investing in these start-ups, always trying to get in with the new hot thing in Silicon valley. He literally got everywhere.
Because hundreds of Brits were and at least 3 are friends of mine
https://x.com/TheMcKenziest/status/1945635984550629830
He doesn't work for NHS Fife...
BREAKING: Senator Richard Durbin says that his office has obtained information that the Trump administration ordered all Epstein records that mentioned Donald Trump to be “flagged":
“According to information my office received, the FBI was pressured to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD) … on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests... My office was told that these personnel were instructed to ‘flag’ any records in which President Trump was mentioned.”
That's why Phase 2 was never released and it was called a "hoax."
https://x.com/EdKrassen/status/1946258417716527579
The Telegraph is doing well and makes good money
It's weird how the public still has this perception that newspapers are dying. I guess it is because the PAPER circulations are still plunging, and they are. But they have all now made the major shift to digital, and have worked out how to make paywalls profitable (except the Groaniad, bless them)
"Print" media (we need a new word) is now a growing industry once again, in the UK. So you can make profits AND have political influence, hence the eagerness of billionaires to get in on the action. Hence someone like Paul Marshall (a truly great man) paying an apparently insane £100 MILLION for the Spectator
As politics geeks, we should all surely applaud this. Successful news outlets are a good thing. A thriving media landscape is a good thing - whatever your politics
Fabulous
Also take out free/bulk subs and are the core Telegraph titles really doing that well? This is now a couple of years out of date but will the trend really have changed that much?
https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/14078928/embed?auto=1
Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad is still worth reading.
I have not read John Steinbeck's Travels with Charley, but it received many favorable reviews. (Trigger warning: Charley was a dog.)
More recently, Calvin Trillin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Trillin (He and I differ on politics, but I have a couple of his travel books, which I greatly enjoyed.)
I've just told you I have a good friend that actually runs their subs. When things are bad, he says, when they're, good he says. I also have multiple friends in the industry
Plus there is this direct evidence - they made an increased profit in 2023 (but there was an exceptional loan that skewed the accounts)
"Turnover at Telegraph Media Group grew £13.8m to £268m, representing a 5.4% increase. Operating profit excluding-exceptional items — including the £277.6m provision — rose from £40.1m to £54.2m, a 35.2% increase."
https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/telegraph-record-loss-financial-irregularities-operating-profit-increase/
I recently spent a week in an absurd 5 star hotel in the Philippines with a senior editor of a well known "Interiors" magazine
I was really quite surprised when she told me
1. Their circulation (print and digital)
2. Their profit
3. How much money she made
I presumed all would be tiny. I was wrong
They've removed the optimise for mobile devices option (or hidden it somewhere obscure.)
Let's just say that I prefer Mark Twain and Calvin Trillin -- and am nearly certain that I would prefer Steinbeck, too.
"Afghan migrant brings 22 relatives to UK
Family members previously rejected for asylum were allowed in following data breach"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/18/afghan-migrant-brought-22-relatives-to-uk-after-data-breach/
Sorry you say what....
"There was a dramatic change in the criteria last November, when High Court judge Mrs Justice Yip ruled, in a case brought against the Foreign Office by an Afghan already living in the UK, that family members did not have to have a blood or legal connection to the applicant."
This is open to all sort of abuses.
We could, theoretically, end up with 100,000+ coming here. And they will probably all sue us for the "data breach"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/07/18/germany-deports-afghans-after-striking-deal-with-taliban/
The government and judiciary are, together, steering Britain into a very dark place
So, under the rules, if they get here they get to stay here. And that will remain the case until we finally accept these rules are stupid and unsustainable.
The Afghan scandal is an absolute catastrophe for our democracy, and possibly for the British people. I've explained why, and we are now seeing Why
Iran are about to kick 4m Afghans out. How many tens of thousands of them are going to end up here? Quite a number and they won't need some government scheme to qualify.
There are legitimate concerns about this use of injunctions by the government to hide what they are doing but the big picture is that the UN Convention on Refugees is no longer fit for purpose and we should withdraw from it.
Best bit is when Shelby takes Henry Ford for a ride in the GT40 ("it is at this point they spoil their pants" is quite a good quote)
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2025/jul/18/the-estate-review-adeel-akhtar-dorfman-theatre-london
As if a brown bloke would be able to rise and rise swiftly and find themselves in charge even in modern Britain....and virtually nobody care they were brown. Obviously totally unrealistic fantasy writing.
Just realer the files and deal with the guilty individuals.
That's the Dem position.
If it means (hypothetically) Clinton gets included, so what ?
Home Office Data (2022–2024): The UK asylum system costs approximately £3-4.3 billion annually, with a significant portion attributed to accommodation, particularly hotels. In 2022, Migration Watch UK estimated hotel costs for asylum seekers at £1.3 billion per year for about 25,000 individuals, equating to roughly £51,100 per person per year (£4,258/month).
If the average refugee costs us £50k per year and we take in 50,000 Afghans (many will cost more, some less) then that is an additional £2.5bn a YEAR, every year. If we take in 100,000, it's another £5bn a year, every year
That stray email could easily end up costing us £50bn in a decade
I simply do not understand why they do not realise there is an obvious conflict of interest here between the interests of NHS Fife and Dr U. My guess is that there is no sensible instructing solicitor with the intelligence, competence or courage to say so and insist on different legal teams plus no intelligent, competent or courageous client to listen to and act on such advice.
It takes a special sort of incompetence to issue 4 versions of a statement which initially defames counsel for the nurse and a third party, pisses off the Information Commissioner who is now considering whether NHS Fife are in contempt and have breached undertakings they gave to him, appears to have been issued without its own barrister first being made aware, in the middle of live proceedings and reveals that the reason the hearing was transferred to Dundee was because of threats to the nurse and her legal team.
If NHS Fife conceded at this point after the outcome of the disciplinary hearing they could at least say "well, we had a disciplinary hearing, the outcome is what it is so there is no point to the employment hearing plus with the SC decision we will take steps to comply with the law". It doesn't dwell on the very many faults in their handling of the matter but it would be a broadly sensible way to bring the matter to a close.
But of course none of this would suit Dr U because it would mean that his evidence had been rejected, his honesty put in question and he would not be able to use the ladies' facilities. Plus there would be the issue of legal costs. So he has every interest in continuing to fight whereas Fife - if sensibly advised (a bloody big "if" to be fair) - does not.
I also suspect that one reason why Fife is continuing is because to concede would be to admit the incompetence and malice of some of their senior officials, all of whom have an interest in continuing to justify themselves and throw mud at Sandie P.
It is an absolute shit show!
https://x.com/crimeldn/status/1946249305515290885
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025, according to newly published figures.
The Home Office's annual accounts, external show £2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about £5.77m per day, down from £3bn or £8.3m per day, the previous year.
Data obtained by BBC Verify shows the saving has been driven by a reduction in the average nightly cost per person housed, after a government move to use cheaper forms of accommodation and room sharing.
A guy today (a journalist on top of this story) told me that he reckoned another 10,000 are eligible to come (on top of those already here). Each one of them is allowed to bring dependants
You easily reach 50-100,000 that way
Btw the journalist who told me this is in FAVOUR of the scheme. Says we owe it to them even if it’s painful and expensive
"I don't think hotels are going away anytime soon based on current trends," he said.
I noticed that the Dundee Courier has noticed that NHS Fife have issued a statement about the Information Connoisseur's response.
NHS Fife's production of The Operating Theatre of The Absurd goes on for another run next week.
And I would also like to know what has happened to the 1000s of Afghans who helped the US (far bigger) military? Have they been given asylum in the US in last two years? If so, ICE will shortly be sending them back.
Why were we there in the first place? 9/11 and the only time NATO's Article 5 has been invoked.
We have obviously given up on Pat McFadden fiction of cutting the size of government.
they’re now considering not even showing the latest series of NHS Fife.