A Reform source says White House will be ‘furious’ at this ahead of state visit, given Trump’s Epstein links
Reform can get stuffed. Farage, for all his many public forums and a grovelling media, was a complete bystander in this affair - too busy sauntering off to the US to bad mouth his country and diminish our standing in the world. It's Kemi who has claimed the scalp of the century. The lazy, complacent and arrogant Farage needs to look, learn and up his game!
I’m being told it was Morgan McSweeny - who is close to Mandelson - who was pushing for a better defence of him yesterday and thus to stay.
He’s the key link between Mandelson and No10. Keir Starmer wasn’t always a complete fan, sensing at points Mandelson like many Blairites had his criticisms
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.
I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.
But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.
Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:
It does rather suggest that Starmer's much vaunted "process" was rubbish.
Either they knew everything and didn't care. Or they didn't and didn't do even the most basic due diligence.
Rubbish judgment.
I doubt it's "Starmer's process". There's a standard diplomatic service process.
My point remains. Either the standard process revealed all this information and it was ignored. Or it didn't, in which case it was rubbish.
Possibly the standard diplomatic service process works well for trained diplomats and does not work well or at all for politicians. I suspect the latter. Maybe his closeness to Epstein - given Trump's relationship with Epstein - was seen as an advantage. Who knows? Either way an absence of good judgment - not the first such example by this government.
That's now 6 senior members* of the government gone in a year. Its becoming a bit of a common occurrence. We aren't anywhere near the Boris levels of bringing government into disrepute, but still it doesn't look good.
* Mandelson was more than the usual apolitical Ambassador e.g. he was hanging around Downing Street only last week when the reshuffle was on.
It’s not obvious to me that Trump gives a shit who is UK Ambassador during his State Visit.
The pre-emptive genuflection is saddening.
When did Britain become a wholly-owned entity of the United States? I blame Brexit.
Trump actually had a good relationship with Mandelson. It will be hard finding an Ambassador who can do the same from those eligible.
Whether appointing an Ambassador to Paris, DC, Delhi, Pretoria, Berlin etc you need someone who can build a relationship that is effective with the government of the day, Brexit or no Brexit and Mandelson was a fierce Remainer anyway in 2016
Starmer is rubbish at politics. That's it. Not just bad in general terms, but even worse than Sunak. We've had a string of PMs who however well intentioned or capable they are, they are rubbish as politics. May, Truss, Sunak, Starmer all basically not up to the job. Brown is another one if we want to go further back.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:
Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.
Good morning everybody.
And is precisely why Starmer shouldn't have agreed to stand as Labour leader. Anyone who has climbed the political greasy pole has come to know that that's what happens to you, and has developed the skills and or temperament to shrug it off, especially if un-, or only partially, justified. Starmer just didn't do his apprenticeship, articles or whatever you want to call it.
Incidentally, on the front I wonder whether it's the same in Canada and if so how Mark Carney is coping.
Given Starmer won the biggest Labour majority since Blair after 4 consecutive Labour defeats and clearly is a more competent PM than Corbyn or Long Bailey would have been despite everything somewhat strange comment.
I am sure Carney is coping well having won the biggest come from behind victory for any party in Canadian electoral history
Winning the biggest majority since whoever doesn't demonstrate 'competence'. After all, he was up against a tired and incompetent existing government (I recognise that YMMV) .And we don't know for sure how Corbyn would have managed as PM; he's had a long, long tine in politics and he just might have had experience enough. And he's apparently a good constituency MP.
Being a good constituency MP is not the same as being a good PM
Starmer is rubbish at politics. That's it. Not just bad in general terms, but even worse than Sunak. We've had a string of PMs who however well intentioned or capable they are, they are rubbish as politics. May, Truss, Sunak, Starmer all basically not up to the job. Brown is another one if we want to go further back.
Mandy even "tipped" Starmer off saying there is lots more shit to come on this, but there was Gordon Brittas in the Commons going don't panic, the leisure centre is most definitely not on fire, nothing to see here.
The real question is what information was given during screening and what was the recommendations. I am sure Starmer is going to claim independent process, never crossed my desk, etc etc etc.
I’m being told it was Morgan McSweeny - who is close to Mandelson - who was pushing for a better defence of him yesterday and thus to stay.
He’s the key link between Mandelson and No10. Keir Starmer wasn’t always a complete fan, sensing at points Mandelson like many Blairites had his criticisms
Presumably someone with the interests of the Labour govt at heart? Anyone who's taking advice from Glasman is a problem, Glasman's 'blue Labour' has drifted from 'socially conservative' to full on MAGA.
Trying to work out who if anyone in the UK is the equivalent of Kirk, Walsh and Shapiro.
Tommy perhaps. Katie. Owen.
Okay not too tricky.
I don't think there is a British equivalent really. Kirk fancied himself as a debater and intellectual, rather than the street agitator style of Robinson. British Right Wing Populism doesn't have the intellectual foundations of MAGA, centered as it is in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.
Dan Hannan, Peter Hitchens, most GB news presenters, even Clarkson or Kelvin McKenzie
None of those are "centered in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.".
Nor did any build their following but setting up an organisation to proselytise on college campuses.
UK politics doesn't really have an equivalent of that US style conservatism, and we are better for it.
Possibly a nearer thing (and it's still not really comparable) might be Tommy Robinson.
What an interesting question.
Maga is not centered on "Evangelical Christianity"; that is just a skin, and they have put it through a filter to exclude the parts that don't fit with an "America first" worldview. Recall how frightened and vicious Trump and Vance were when Bishop Budde reminded them that "mercy" and 'caring for the refugee' are Christian (and Evangelical Christian) values.
Evangelical Christianity has gone through a filter in Maga in the same way as the Dutch Reformed Church ended up justifying apartheid - the tradition of say Hegseth is similar, embracing women as subservient and so on. There' an 'intellectual' justification too, which is easier to fall for in the American context - Manifest Destiny and the rest of the self-justifying garbage, which is met even amongst liberals ("the USA is the best country in the world" etc).
Remember that Martin Luther King was an Evangelical Christian (Baptist Minister); it's never as simple as we would like.
On UK equivalents, I'd go for someone more intellectual than a street thug like Tommy Robinson, since Turning Point targets universities and young adults. Perhaps a better equivalent is Matt Gooodwin or someone attached to Natcon or in the Free Speech Union or anti-abortion circles. There's a whole zoo of Right-fringe organisations trying to be intellectual, but I don't know any figures who have made it.
I don't know eg a younger populist version of Douglas Murray, who might qualify. Most of the Evangelicals on the political right in the UK do not seem to go down that route, and pull back towards more useful emphases (eg Steve Barclay); they sort of self-triangulate and avoid the rabbit hole. That's partly to do with UK evangelicals being far more integrated.
Does Paul Marshall have any programmes for developing thought leaders?
Bishop Budde is a liberal Catholic Episcopalian Anglican not an Evangelical
That's correct, but 'mercy' and 'caring for the refugee' are Evangelical Christian values, too.
If an Evangelical Bishop has told Trump or Vance, I'd love to see the video.
Most evangelical Churches like the Baptists, Independents and Pentecostals and Presbyterians don't have Bishops, though you have a few from the evangelical wing of the Lutherans and Anglicans and in the Methodists.
Evangelicals are also overwhelmingly pro Trump, 82% of white evangelicals voted for Trump last year, compared to 63% of Protestants overall, 59% of Roman Catholics and just 34% from other religions, 27% with no religious affiliation and a mere 22% of Jews
The Mandelson thing will blow over, despite the frotting on here by usual suspects like Big G.
But the long-term structural problem is that Starmer has no political nous of his own and no sense of political vision, and thus easily becomes reliant on unworthy svengalis.
I don't know how credible this line is (and the pressure to release details of his vetting isn't going to go away), but the decision to sack Mandelson was undoubtedly correct.
He said No 10 had not known about emails from Mandelson to Epstein suggesting his 2008 conviction for soliciting a child for prostitution was wrongful and should be challenged.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “In light of the additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.
“The emails show that the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Peter Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information.
“In light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, he has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.”
Before Mandelson’s departure was announced, Wes Streeting, the health secretary, told an event that he was “completely disgusted” by messages Lord Peter Mandelson sent to Epstein and that his future was “a decision for the prime minister”...
Parts of the US government would likely have known about the e-mails. Mandelson would likely have been flagged as a none US person of interest and his digital comms would have been a priority for the NSA's mass digital surveillance.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:
Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.
Good morning everybody.
And is precisely why Starmer shouldn't have agreed to stand as Labour leader. Anyone who has climbed the political greasy pole has come to know that that's what happens to you, and has developed the skills and or temperament to shrug it off, especially if un-, or only partially, justified. Starmer just didn't do his apprenticeship, articles or whatever you want to call it.
Incidentally, on the front I wonder whether it's the same in Canada and if so how Mark Carney is coping.
Given Starmer won the biggest Labour majority since Blair after 4 consecutive Labour defeats and clearly is a more competent PM than Corbyn or Long Bailey would have been despite everything somewhat strange comment.
I am sure Carney is coping well having won the biggest come from behind victory for any party in Canadian electoral history
Winning the biggest majority since whoever doesn't demonstrate 'competence'. After all, he was up against a tired and incompetent existing government (I recognise that YMMV) .And we don't know for sure how Corbyn would have managed as PM; he's had a long, long tine in politics and he just might have had experience enough. And he's apparently a good constituency MP.
Being a good constituency MP is not the same as being a good PM
True, But it does demonstrate a certain amount of political 'nous'. Which is helpful.
Govt says when it appointed Mandelson as ambassador it didn’t know the extent of his relationship with Epstein. But we reported on it back in 2019 (see below). Only cursory due diligence was required…The decision to appoint him was a matter of political judgement.
Lord Glasman write a memo to Morgan McSweeney after Trump’s inauguration
“In the memo, a copy of which was seen by the Mail, he told Mr McSweeney: 'The brutal truth is that the vast majority of people I met… consider our Labour Government to be a front organisation for paedophiles and Pakistani rape gangs.
'They consider our position on the Chagos Islands an example of progressive idiocy and our appointment of Peter Mandelson an unnecessary provocation. They think our Army has gone to hell and our country is overwhelmed by legal and illegal migrants.'
He added: 'Withdraw Peter Mandelson. He is the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong place.'
Lord Mandelson was appointed less than three weeks later.”
Hang on, this quote isn't internally consistent. It implies both that Mr Mandelsonm had been appointed and then that he hadn't yet been. Something missing? Was the first bit just about the proposal and the second bit full confirmation (showing his credentials, whatever it's called)?
I looked this up, and Mandy was announced as being our ambassador in Dec 2024, taking up the position “early next year”
And, having read a little more and talked to some colleagues over coffee earlier, I've concluded that I'm out of date and you were largely right in our earlier exchange. Some years ago I worked on cost-effectiveness evaluations that were used by NICE, but the environment has changed since then, it seems. There's more to it than NHS drugs spend, but I do accept there's a problem there.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
At least some good has come out of all this chaos. People have stopped droning on, for now at least, about asylum seekers, small boats and luxury hotels.
For many reasons associated with Peter Mandelson’s history in and out of political office many will feel KeIr has lost all sense of political judgement on this decision.
It’s not obvious to me that Trump gives a shit who is UK Ambassador during his State Visit.
The pre-emptive genuflection is saddening.
When did Britain become a wholly-owned entity of the United States? I blame Brexit.
You're 60 years out. It was around the time of the Suez crisis.
France learnt one lesson, the US cannot be trusted so a strong united Europe is the way forward.
Britain learnt another: we must tie ourselves even more closely to the US so we are never undermined like that again.
IMO it showed a disastrous lack of British self-confidence and self-respect which has bedevilled Britain's approach to the US and Europe ever since.
Not entirely true, the UK stayed out of Vietnam for instance with Canada and it was France who first fought the Viet Cong.
That was because Vietnam was part of their colonial empire, and nothing to do with being tied to the US.
They got what they could out of the relationship (US military aid and funding for France in Vietnam immediately post WWII was very substantial), but after Dien Bien Phu, and the subsequent armistice and independence of the two Vietnams, France was out.
Direct US involvement in Vietnam came after the French had gone.
At least some good has come out of all this chaos. People have stopped droning on, for now at least, about asylum seekers, small boats and luxury hotels.
The problem hasn't gone away, 1000s crossing this week and some deaths, it will be back on the agenda shortly.
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
As I said, the left are on a roll of violence at the moment.
At least some good has come out of all this chaos. People have stopped droning on, for now at least, about asylum seekers, small boats and luxury hotels.
Will Mandelson seek asylum on Deripaskas luxury yacht perhaps?
And, having read a little more and talked to some colleagues over coffee earlier, I've concluded that I'm out of date and you were largely right in our earlier exchange. Some years ago I worked on cost-effectiveness evaluations that were used by NICE, but the environment has changed since then, it seems. There's more to it than NHS drugs spend, but I do accept there's a problem there.
That is perhaps the first time I've ever persuaded anyone of a case on PB !
At least some good has come out of all this chaos. People have stopped droning on, for now at least, about asylum seekers, small boats and luxury hotels.
The problem hasn't gone away, 1000s crossing this week and some deaths, it will be back on the agenda shortly.
Well I must say that I have been laughing so loudly that the neighbouring stand at this trade show asked what was so funny.
Laugh? I nearly shat.
Why the actual fucking fuck did Starmer say that at PMQs yesterday?
Mandelson was a POLITICAL appointment, calculated as the best way for Britain to slime its way into the Trump cesspit. Which means forget all the guff yesterday about a proper process, Mandy was Starmer's choice.
It seems incomprehensible that nobody knew Mandy and Jeffrey were bezzies because everyone knew. So Mandy having to be sacked for something this bad directly calls Starmer's judgement into question.
Backing a man backing a nonce is not a good look at the best of times, never mind now in the febrile mood out there.
Starmer may have just holed himself below the water line and it's in danger of overtopping the watertight doors...
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
For good or ill (the latter, IMO) Brexit was a conscious turning away from our European neighbours. As Farage and Boris were instrumental in that, it's hardly surprising - and Farage seems to have spent almost as much time in the US as the UK, since his election to Parliament.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
The guy said that empathy was a made up term, he said Jews controlled the media and were pushing hatred of white people, he said black people only got their jobs because of affirmative action, he said school shootings were worth it to protect gun rights... yeah sounds like a lovely man.
For someone who hadn't heard of him until last night you happen to have a lot of his wit and wisdom to hand.
A quick google "Charlie Kirk....Jews" shows that many in that community, including notably Benjamin Netanyahu, are very much mourning his killing.
I have only ever heard him talk about black people in the context of proportional numbers and the major cause of death of black youths (he would say other black youths).
The 2nd Amendment yes he did say that, not particularly nasty although I don't happen to agree with it.
He was a big friend of Israel because, like a lot of US evangelicas, he saw the return of the Jews to Israel as fulfilling biblical prophecy and hence bringing forward the end times scenario sketched out in the Book of Revelation (at which point Jews in common with other non Christians will come to a sticky end). There is no inconsistency in this worldview with also thinking Jews in the US are a sinister cabal seeking to replace white Christians with minorities.
Yes I am aware of the support for Israel from evangelical Christians. Could you please post the source clip where he said that about the media. I'm interested in hearing it directly.
This piece I think has links to the comments, apparently made on his show/podcast.
"APPARENTLY"
LOL
In other words you have never heard him say any of those things. FFS it helps if you don't make stuff up.
Wikipedia: Kirk was highly supportive of Israel. Amidst the Gaza war, Israeli politicians and political activists including Itamar Ben-Gvir, Eli Cohen, Danny Danon, Benny Gantz, Isaac Herzog, Yoav Kisch, Benjamin Netanyahu, Yair Netanyahu, Amir Ohana, Miri Regev and Miki Zohar mourned Kirk's death, with many describing him as a "friend" of Israel and a few linking his death to anti-Zionist activism. *
Iran–Israel War Main article: Iran-Israel War In June 2025, Kirk opposed the involvement of the United States in the Iran–Israel War.
* In the usual manner of X, there are a significant number of posts (probably bots) blaming "the Jews" for his murder.
I mean he was totally out there in that (evangelical) christian ultra-conservative bonkers way but I didn't get any sense that he was malevolent towards specific groups, beyond repeating certain (who knows, perhaps spurious) statistics such as the number of Jews in/running Hollywood (can you run Hollywood these days with all the streamers) and in particular black-on-black violence and death statistics.
The Mandelson thing will blow over, despite the frotting on here by usual suspects like Big G.
But the long-term structural problem is that Starmer has no political nous of his own and no sense of political vision, and thus easily becomes reliant on unworthy svengalis.
The BBC have brilliantly taken down Rayner and Mandelson. Let's hope they can take down the terminally useless Starmer too.
Simon Marks the very impressive LBC US Editor suggests the dismissal of Mandelson will go down in the Whitehouse like a bucket of cold vomit. It will serve to demonstrate this notion promoted by Vance and Farage that free speech is dead in the UK. Trump wants Farage as PM so his hostility levels to the UK will rise to South Africa levels.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
The guy said that empathy was a made up term, he said Jews controlled the media and were pushing hatred of white people, he said black people only got their jobs because of affirmative action, he said school shootings were worth it to protect gun rights... yeah sounds like a lovely man.
For someone who hadn't heard of him until last night you happen to have a lot of his wit and wisdom to hand.
A quick google "Charlie Kirk....Jews" shows that many in that community, including notably Benjamin Netanyahu, are very much mourning his killing.
I have only ever heard him talk about black people in the context of proportional numbers and the major cause of death of black youths (he would say other black youths).
The 2nd Amendment yes he did say that, not particularly nasty although I don't happen to agree with it.
He was a big friend of Israel because, like a lot of US evangelicas, he saw the return of the Jews to Israel as fulfilling biblical prophecy and hence bringing forward the end times scenario sketched out in the Book of Revelation (at which point Jews in common with other non Christians will come to a sticky end). There is no inconsistency in this worldview with also thinking Jews in the US are a sinister cabal seeking to replace white Christians with minorities.
Yes I am aware of the support for Israel from evangelical Christians. Could you please post the source clip where he said that about the media. I'm interested in hearing it directly.
This piece I think has links to the comments, apparently made on his show/podcast.
"APPARENTLY"
LOL
In other words you have never heard him say any of those things. FFS it helps if you don't make stuff up.
I'm quoting from a balanced write up of his views in a respected publication. Are you saying he didn't say these things? Or are you just embarrassed to be sticking up for someone who is on record spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories?
Just about the entire Jewish community has come together in support to mourn him including "Top Jew" Benjamin Netanyahu.
Are Jews prevalent in Hollywood? They used to be. Not that I'm going to dissect every claim or statement of his (Kirk's).
But you are late to the game with Kirk and have no context or understanding of his "schtick" so perhaps you should, you know, stay in your lane.
Lets assume that Starmer sinks. We won't get a GE - the majority is huge. So perhaps elect a new MP who is comedically shit, and then another new PM who is comedically wet.
How about Wes Streeting as the shit one, then Pat McFadden as the wet one.
And, having read a little more and talked to some colleagues over coffee earlier, I've concluded that I'm out of date and you were largely right in our earlier exchange. Some years ago I worked on cost-effectiveness evaluations that were used by NICE, but the environment has changed since then, it seems. There's more to it than NHS drugs spend, but I do accept there's a problem there.
That is perhaps the first time I've ever persuaded anyone of a case on PB !
You and lefty woke academics expressing sympathy for big pharma companies!
Interesting lesson though, falling into the trap of thinking that because I used to know a lot about a subject I still do.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
Whether committed religionists are nice or nasty, and in what mixture, is a question of fact in every case. There are many traps for the unwary 'committed' believer - like the sort who end up backing 'Jesus, babies, guns, whites, English speaking, autocrats, kleptocrats'.
There is however a good deal to be said for 'uncommitted religionists'. The sort, of which there were quite a lot, who thought that the best way of loving and honouring God (whichever god she was) was to live a life according to principle and moral fundamentals, and to assume all power is service and that if god made and cared for all things then in our own tiny sphere of life we we could best honour and worship god by caring for others and doing no evil, and not leaving out the unlovable and the unloved to the best of our finite abilities.
This is by the way, a perfectly possible and sensible reading of what Jesus - and I suspect quite few other religious leaders - were on about. Significantly more likely than that Jesus was really on about the merits of gun ownership and white supremacy.
Yeah but you don't really need Jesus and the whole on the third day he was risen bit to live a "good" life.
Of course, that goes without saying. I didn't compose the last 2000 years of human and religious history. We are where we are.
A fully formed religion needs a bit more to get going than 'be nice'. In particular early Christianity resolved a couple of tricky issues such as the Jewish and pagan rather gloomy expectations of the afterlife, replacing them with hope; it promoted strongly the significance of very poor and oppressed humanity - ie most of it, in the great scheme of things, something Romans were not great at. Also the religion set up the idea, still immensely strong, of a jurisdiction on the basis of humble servanthood rather than Caesar like power.
Despite the epic fails of the last 2000 years, I still like all those things, and FWIW I think each of them ultimately derive from the thoughts of Jesus himself, who was a very remarkable person.
Were they now. Catherine Nixey et al are not so sure.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.
I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.
But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.
Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:
Lets assume that Starmer sinks. We won't get a GE - the majority is huge. So perhaps elect a new MP who is comedically shit, and then another new PM who is comedically wet.
How about Wes Streeting as the shit one, then Pat McFadden as the wet one.
Isn't Pat McFadden the one that loves to pretend he is the hard one. Going to take the axe to the civil servant numbers, cut quangos, drive up productivity etc.....
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
The guy said that empathy was a made up term, he said Jews controlled the media and were pushing hatred of white people, he said black people only got their jobs because of affirmative action, he said school shootings were worth it to protect gun rights... yeah sounds like a lovely man.
For someone who hadn't heard of him until last night you happen to have a lot of his wit and wisdom to hand.
A quick google "Charlie Kirk....Jews" shows that many in that community, including notably Benjamin Netanyahu, are very much mourning his killing.
I have only ever heard him talk about black people in the context of proportional numbers and the major cause of death of black youths (he would say other black youths).
The 2nd Amendment yes he did say that, not particularly nasty although I don't happen to agree with it.
He was a big friend of Israel because, like a lot of US evangelicas, he saw the return of the Jews to Israel as fulfilling biblical prophecy and hence bringing forward the end times scenario sketched out in the Book of Revelation (at which point Jews in common with other non Christians will come to a sticky end). There is no inconsistency in this worldview with also thinking Jews in the US are a sinister cabal seeking to replace white Christians with minorities.
Yes I am aware of the support for Israel from evangelical Christians. Could you please post the source clip where he said that about the media. I'm interested in hearing it directly.
This piece I think has links to the comments, apparently made on his show/podcast.
"APPARENTLY"
LOL
In other words you have never heard him say any of those things. FFS it helps if you don't make stuff up.
Wikipedia: Kirk was highly supportive of Israel. Amidst the Gaza war, Israeli politicians and political activists including Itamar Ben-Gvir, Eli Cohen, Danny Danon, Benny Gantz, Isaac Herzog, Yoav Kisch, Benjamin Netanyahu, Yair Netanyahu, Amir Ohana, Miri Regev and Miki Zohar mourned Kirk's death, with many describing him as a "friend" of Israel and a few linking his death to anti-Zionist activism. *
Iran–Israel War Main article: Iran-Israel War In June 2025, Kirk opposed the involvement of the United States in the Iran–Israel War.
* In the usual manner of X, there are a significant number of posts (probably bots) blaming "the Jews" for his murder.
I mean he was totally out there in that (evangelical) christian ultra-conservative bonkers way but I didn't get any sense that he was malevolent towards specific groups, beyond repeating certain (who knows, perhaps spurious) statistics such as the number of Jews in/running Hollywood (can you run Hollywood these days with all the streamers) and in particular black-on-black violence and death statistics.
It's the old scorpion and frog tale.
I don't think he was nasty.
Neither do I, much as I disliked his politics, and however nasty the implications of some of the policy positions he adopted.
He was someone who spent his entire adult life (like some of our MPs) solely in the political sphere. I don't think that's particularly healthy. But he wasn't an out and out political grenade thrower like (for example) a Stephen Miller.
Mandy, Sue Gray, 3 dude Directors of Communication
What next Tzipi Hotlovey as Foreign Secretary
We have had so many sacking / resignations in such a short space of time, I had actually forgotten about the clusterfuck that was Sue Gray.
Yet the man closest to SKS remains there - he, of course, being the real problem. Noone misjudging so many things so badly should have kept his post so long. As for Sue Gray well Lab would snatch at getting back to where they were before she was booted to make way for ... now who was that again?
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
Bizarre reaction. Kirk is widely credited with delivering Trump's election victories, was a close friend of Trump's, and was one of the most influential political voices in America.
But I suppose we're only on POLITICAL betting.com so where's the picture of that dog.
Lets assume that Starmer sinks. We won't get a GE - the majority is huge. So perhaps elect a new MP who is comedically shit, and then another new PM who is comedically wet.
How about Wes Streeting as the shit one, then Pat McFadden as the wet one.
Isn't Pat McFadden the one that loves to pretend he is the hard one. Going to take the axe to the civil servant numbers, cut quangos, drive up productivity etc.....
Calling Andy Burnham.
Although as Lab can't win a by election anywhere in the country atmosphere the chances are currently close to nil
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
Bizarre reaction. Kirk is widely credited with delivering Trump's election victories, was a close friend of Trump's, and was one of the most influential political voices in America.
But I suppose we're only on POLITICAL betting.com so where's the picture of that dog.
I’d barely heard of him before yesterday. I doubt most PBers had, either.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
Bizarre reaction. Kirk is widely credited with delivering Trump's election victories, was a close friend of Trump's, and was one of the most influential political voices in America.
But I suppose we're only on POLITICAL betting.com so where's the picture of that dog.
I’d barely heard of him before yesterday. I doubt most PBers had, either.
Politicians take note of political assassination. Yeah it's really weird.
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
Bizarre reaction. Kirk is widely credited with delivering Trump's election victories, was a close friend of Trump's, and was one of the most influential political voices in America.
But I suppose we're only on POLITICAL betting.com so where's the picture of that dog.
I’d barely heard of him before yesterday. I doubt most PBers had, either.
Is not a badge of honour for a contributor to a political blog.
Lets assume that Starmer sinks. We won't get a GE - the majority is huge. So perhaps elect a new MP who is comedically shit, and then another new PM who is comedically wet.
How about Wes Streeting as the shit one, then Pat McFadden as the wet one.
Isn't Pat McFadden the one that loves to pretend he is the hard one. Going to take the axe to the civil servant numbers, cut quangos, drive up productivity etc.....
Yes, that's him.
I put him into the Sunak role and call him wet. I can see McFadden standing at the podium with his 5 pledges behind him. STOP THE BOATS on the lectern. Delivering Fuck All.
It’s not obvious to me that Trump gives a shit who is UK Ambassador during his State Visit.
The pre-emptive genuflection is saddening.
When did Britain become a wholly-owned entity of the United States? I blame Brexit.
You're 60 years out. It was around the time of the Suez crisis.
France learnt one lesson, the US cannot be trusted so a strong united Europe is the way forward.
Britain learnt another: we must tie ourselves even more closely to the US so we are never undermined like that again.
IMO it showed a disastrous lack of British self-confidence and self-respect which has bedevilled Britain's approach to the US and Europe ever since.
Not entirely true, the UK stayed out of Vietnam for instance with Canada and it was France who first fought the Viet Cong.
No the UK was heavily involved in Vietnam in two phases. Firstly during 1945-6, when we routed the Viet Minh in a number of battles at the cost of 40 British Empire troops, only to hand it over to the French and then the Americans who were both defeated by them.
Then during the 1960s and 1970s we helped the US with special forces and the use of our critical base in Hong Kong, the RAF flew supply missions to help the Americans though we didn't send ground troops or air strikes.
Mandy, Sue Gray, 3 dude Directors of Communication
What next Tzipi Hotlovey as Foreign Secretary
You've missed all the other Ministers ..most are duds.
He appointed Annaliese Dodds to Shadow Chancellor, and she seems to have sunk without trace. He appointed Nick Thomas-Symonds to Shadow Home Secretary, who was similarly ill-suited. (Although he seems to be doing decent work as Europe Minister)
"If this is not allowed, our companies will face all kinds of difficulties and disadvantages when setting up factories in the U.S., and they will inevitably question whether they should proceed. This may have a significant impact on their direct investments in the U.S."
The president added that as the two sides negotiate to obtain additional quotas or create a new visa category for Korean workers, Washington is likely to approach the issue from a practical standpoint.
The unprecedented immigration raid has rattled Seoul’s business community, leaving conglomerates wary of new investments after pouring billions into U.S. plants for semiconductors, automobiles and batteries in a bid to avoid tariffs and secure subsidies..
I see Boris and Farage have also tweeted about Charlie Kirk.
Absolutely bizarre. I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
Bizarre reaction. Kirk is widely credited with delivering Trump's election victories, was a close friend of Trump's, and was one of the most influential political voices in America.
But I suppose we're only on POLITICAL betting.com so where's the picture of that dog.
I’d barely heard of him before yesterday. I doubt most PBers had, either.
I'd never heard of him whatsoever, despite my insatiable cravings for anti-Trump commentary.
Lets assume that Starmer sinks. We won't get a GE - the majority is huge. So perhaps elect a new MP who is comedically shit, and then another new PM who is comedically wet.
How about Wes Streeting as the shit one, then Pat McFadden as the wet one.
Isn't Pat McFadden the one that loves to pretend he is the hard one. Going to take the axe to the civil servant numbers, cut quangos, drive up productivity etc.....
Calling Andy Burnham.
Although as Lab can't win a by election anywhere in the country atmosphere the chances are currently close to nil
Mandy, Sue Gray, 3 dude Directors of Communication
What next Tzipi Hotlovey as Foreign Secretary
You've missed all the other Ministers ..most are duds.
He appointed Annaliese Dodds to Shadow Chancellor, and she seems to have sunk without trace. He appointed Nick Thomas-Symonds to Shadow Home Secretary, who was similarly ill-suited. (Although he seems to be doing decent work as Europe Minister)
I actually wonder if somethings people are terribly suited to shadow roles where it is all about attacking poor decision and making lots of noise, but might be reasonably good at the quietly getting on with the actual job. And vice versa.
Starmer losing his deputy pm and US Ambassador in a week of sleaze is a Boris level crisis for him
You have had a great week, having personally taken two Labour scalps and a probability of the PM too, but Boris levels of sleaze is too far by a country mile.
The BBC have tasted blood and won't stop until Farage is in No10.
Trying to work out who if anyone in the UK is the equivalent of Kirk, Walsh and Shapiro.
Tommy perhaps. Katie. Owen.
Okay not too tricky.
I don't think there is a British equivalent really. Kirk fancied himself as a debater and intellectual, rather than the street agitator style of Robinson. British Right Wing Populism doesn't have the intellectual foundations of MAGA, centered as it is in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.
Dan Hannan, Peter Hitchens, most GB news presenters, even Clarkson or Kelvin McKenzie
None of those are "centered in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.".
Nor did any build their following but setting up an organisation to proselytise on college campuses.
UK politics doesn't really have an equivalent of that US style conservatism, and we are better for it.
Possibly a nearer thing (and it's still not really comparable) might be Tommy Robinson.
What an interesting question.
Maga is not centered on "Evangelical Christianity"; that is just a skin, and they have put it through a filter to exclude the parts that don't fit with an "America first" worldview. Recall how frightened and vicious Trump and Vance were when Bishop Budde reminded them that "mercy" and 'caring for the refugee' are Christian (and Evangelical Christian) values.
Evangelical Christianity has gone through a filter in Maga in the same way as the Dutch Reformed Church ended up justifying apartheid - the tradition of say Hegseth is similar, embracing women as subservient and so on. There' an 'intellectual' justification too, which is easier to fall for in the American context - Manifest Destiny and the rest of the self-justifying garbage, which is met even amongst liberals ("the USA is the best country in the world" etc).
Remember that Martin Luther King was an Evangelical Christian (Baptist Minister); it's never as simple as we would like.
On UK equivalents, I'd go for someone more intellectual than a street thug like Tommy Robinson, since Turning Point targets universities and young adults. Perhaps a better equivalent is Matt Gooodwin or someone attached to Natcon or in the Free Speech Union or anti-abortion circles. There's a whole zoo of Right-fringe organisations trying to be intellectual, but I don't know any figures who have made it.
I don't know eg a younger populist version of Douglas Murray, who might qualify. Most of the Evangelicals on the political right in the UK do not seem to go down that route, and pull back towards more useful emphases (eg Steve Barclay); they sort of self-triangulate and avoid the rabbit hole. That's partly to do with UK evangelicals being far more integrated.
Does Paul Marshall have any programmes for developing thought leaders?
Bishop Budde is a liberal Catholic Episcopalian Anglican not an Evangelical
That's correct, but 'mercy' and 'caring for the refugee' are Evangelical Christian values, too.
If an Evangelical Bishop has told Trump or Vance, I'd love to see the video.
Most evangelical Churches like the Baptists, Independents and Pentecostals and Presbyterians don't have Bishops, though you have a few from the evangelical wing of the Lutherans and Anglicans and in the Methodists.
Evangelicals are also overwhelmingly pro Trump, 82% of white evangelicals voted for Trump last year, compared to 63% of Protestants overall, 59% of Roman Catholics and just 34% from other religions, 27% with no religious affiliation and a mere 22% of Jews
There are Pentecostals with Bishops, but they would embrace the RC/Anglican succession dogmas, and would go for the NT "overseer" meaning. And they would also apply the title to the leader of a congregation. COGIC, for example - Church of God in Christ, and it would tend to be black-ked Pentecostal denominations, not white ones.
WRT to Mr Trump, we need Evangelical Bishops in the USA. So Methodists in the USA. And, I think Continuing Anglicans splinters, such as ACNA. Just those are probably 15-20 million members or affiliates, so there's a chance !
So there's the opportunity for one to make Trump blush.
Blacks Es were overwhelmingly against Trump. I'm not sure about Chinese, Asian, Hispanic and so on.
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
Phew that is a relief. I'm not feeling so stupid now. All over my head. I didn't even have a vague sense re Charlie Kirk.
I hadn't heard of him either.
Yeah me neither. Seems like a thoroughly nasty piece of work but it should go without saying that his murder is a terrible thing. After Sandy Hook though I decided not to allow myself to get too upset about US gun violence. It's like a drug addict who keeps relapsing and OD'ing. People who apparently have no desire to help themselves don't really deserve our sympathy.
Not a thoroughly nasty piece of work at all. A committed Christian (which I find bonkers but it takes all sorts) and articulated the views that are anti-fashionable and, no doubt (@Foxy?) biblically-based. I have heard him articulate support for Israel in terms of Jesus being Jewish and walking on water wherever it was but which is now modern-day Israel.
I have a lot of sympathy for saying committed religionists are weird, albeit, ironically, essentially human (and therefore scared which makes them turn to an unseen greater power), but not "thoroughly nasty".
It is perfectly possible to be thoroughly nasty piece of work and a Biblical Christian. His views on stoning gays, that slavery is fine and dandy and that women should be subservient are all backed in scripture.
It doesn't justify his murder of course. However improbable, I would have preferred him to study and absorb the Sermon on the Mount, and to repent of his intolerance, welcoming the stranger, feeding the poor, visiting criminals in jail etc. The killer has denied him the possibility of that sort of spiritual growth.
I see people like Kirk very much as the Pharisees were seen by the Gospel writers, obsessed with rules and propping up the establishment, rather than embracing the Spirit.
While acknowledging that many on here who are now experts on the Life and Works of Charlie Kirk, I am simply someone who has followed his (snipped for the socials) interactions on campuses over the past months and years.
I have never heard of him saying he wants to stone gays and I googled it just now so would be interested in your sources. Would he have said something like that? Maybe - if it is in scripture, in which case I'm sure it would have come with context. I have never, ever heard him wish harm on anyone or any type of person. Please post the clip.
But it is surely the height of hubris for you, as a co-religionist of his, arbitrarily to decide which bits of scripture are okay and which bits are, er, beyond the pale.
Here's Kirk saying that stoning gay men is part of God's perfect law:
So you, as a co-religionist, put yourself in a position to opine on which bits of God's perfect law [sic] is perfect and which isn't.
That right?
Christianity in its broadest sense has a couple of billion adherents across the globe. It is absurd to suggest that the faith possesses one fixed position on all matters, immutable for all the two billion at all times, absurd to suggest that Christians don't or shouldn't engage in critical evaluation of sacred texts, absurd to suggest it is incapable of development and understanding, and absurd to suggest there is something called a 'perfect law' from 3000 years ago to be understood a priori.
You wouldn't understand a triviality like the rules of football in that naive manner. So it isn't true either for the complex ramifications of Christianity.
Comments
@SamCoatesSky
I’m being told it was Morgan McSweeny - who is close to Mandelson - who was pushing for a better defence of him yesterday and thus to stay.
He’s the key link between Mandelson and No10. Keir Starmer wasn’t always a complete fan, sensing at points Mandelson like many Blairites had his criticisms
https://youtu.be/kK3mOBvudZk?si=JNRo8b6ZVpr_Xqxr
A) how robust were foreign office vetting processes. Should they have been better?
If THAT causes an issue, that rebounds on Lammy. And
B ) the who knew what, when element.
And THAT could rebound on Starmer.
This is a fast approaching a level that could conceivably result in a government crisis of Tory proportions.
The pre-emptive genuflection is saddening.
When did Britain become a wholly-owned entity of the United States? I blame Brexit.
Possibly the standard diplomatic service process works well for trained diplomats and does not work well or at all for politicians. I suspect the latter. Maybe his closeness to Epstein - given Trump's relationship with Epstein - was seen as an advantage. Who knows? Either way an absence of good judgment - not the first such example by this government.
* Mandelson was more than the usual apolitical Ambassador e.g. he was hanging around Downing Street only last week when the reshuffle was on.
Whether appointing an Ambassador to Paris, DC, Delhi, Pretoria, Berlin etc you need someone who can build a relationship that is effective with the government of the day, Brexit or no Brexit and Mandelson was a fierce Remainer anyway in 2016
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c8643dp5043o
The real question is what information was given during screening and what was the recommendations. I am sure Starmer is going to claim independent process, never crossed my desk, etc etc etc.
Anyone who's taking advice from Glasman is a problem, Glasman's 'blue Labour' has drifted from 'socially conservative' to full on MAGA.
France learnt one lesson, the US cannot be trusted so a strong united Europe is the way forward.
Britain learnt another: we must tie ourselves even more closely to the US so we are never undermined like that again.
IMO it showed a disastrous lack of British self-confidence and self-respect which has bedevilled Britain's approach to the US and Europe ever since.
https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1922614966495969569?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Evangelicals are also overwhelmingly pro Trump, 82% of white evangelicals voted for Trump last year, compared to 63% of Protestants overall, 59% of Roman Catholics and just 34% from other religions, 27% with no religious affiliation and a mere 22% of Jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Results
But the long-term structural problem is that Starmer has no political nous of his own and no sense of political vision, and thus easily becomes reliant on unworthy svengalis.
Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. He should be immediately sacked.
https://x.com/RichardBurgon/status/1965825991819087903
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/11/keir-starmer-sacks-peter-mandelson-over-jeffrey-epstein-revelations
..The Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty told MPs that Mandelson had not disclosed the extent and depth of his friendship with Epstein, a paedophile financier, when he was appointed as the ambassador.
He said No 10 had not known about emails from Mandelson to Epstein suggesting his 2008 conviction for soliciting a child for prostitution was wrongful and should be challenged.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “In light of the additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.
“The emails show that the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Peter Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information.
“In light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, he has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.”
Before Mandelson’s departure was announced, Wes Streeting, the health secretary, told an event that he was “completely disgusted” by messages Lord Peter Mandelson sent to Epstein and that his future was “a decision for the prime minister”...
Blow for UK drugs sector as Merck scraps £1bn expansion
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzyxjr0lzo
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/appointment-of-lord-mandelson-as-the-next-british-ambassador-to-the-united-states-of-america
Italy and Spain also initially supported Bush in the Iraq War along with Poland and the UK even if France and Germany stayed out.
Most Eastern European nations are also more pro Trump than the UK is, as is Meloni's Italy
Nigel Farage says the death of Charlie Kirk is "a wake up call" for people in public life, "that we have to behave with responsibility."
"It's not just the left that say constant abusive things. There are figures on the right that do the same."
https://x.com/talktv/status/1966084678252654642?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Message spray painted on Sharon Hodgson’s office says ‘328 days of blood on your hands’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/11/labour-mp-sharon-hodgson-office-set-on-fire-328-days/
A number of MPs have had their offices attacked in recent months. I hope if they are caught they get the extra special harsh treatment, like the authorities stamp down hard on rioting, any attack on a politician / their offices etc, should carry similar extra penalties. It is incredibly important that they are protected even if I don't agree with them e.g. Jezza getting assaulted.
Apparently the UK now spends more on Motability than school building maintenance.
People have stopped droning on, for now at least, about asylum seekers, small boats and luxury hotels.
For many reasons associated with Peter Mandelson’s history in and out of political office many will feel KeIr has lost all sense of political judgement on this decision.
https://x.com/johnmcdonnellmp/status/1869935168682680652?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Absolutely bizarre.
I don’t recognise this terminally online, house of mirrors that British politics has turned into.
They got what they could out of the relationship (US military aid and funding for France in Vietnam immediately post WWII was very substantial), but after Dien Bien Phu, and the subsequent armistice and independence of the two Vietnams, France was out.
Direct US involvement in Vietnam came after the French had gone.
Laugh? I nearly shat.
Why the actual fucking fuck did Starmer say that at PMQs yesterday?
Mandelson was a POLITICAL appointment, calculated as the best way for Britain to slime its way into the Trump cesspit. Which means forget all the guff yesterday about a proper process, Mandy was Starmer's choice.
It seems incomprehensible that nobody knew Mandy and Jeffrey were bezzies because everyone knew. So Mandy having to be sacked for something this bad directly calls Starmer's judgement into question.
Backing a man backing a nonce is not a good look at the best of times, never mind now in the febrile mood out there.
Starmer may have just holed himself below the water line and it's in danger of overtopping the watertight doors...
As Farage and Boris were instrumental in that, it's hardly surprising - and Farage seems to have spent almost as much time in the US as the UK, since his election to Parliament.
It's the old scorpion and frog tale.
I don't think he was nasty.
Simon Marks the very impressive LBC US Editor suggests the dismissal of Mandelson will go down in the Whitehouse like a bucket of cold vomit. It will serve to demonstrate this notion promoted by Vance and Farage that free speech is dead in the UK. Trump wants Farage as PM so his hostility levels to the UK will rise to South Africa levels.
Mandy, Sue Gray, 3 dude Directors of Communication
What next Tzipi Hotlovey as Foreign Secretary
Are Jews prevalent in Hollywood? They used to be. Not that I'm going to dissect every claim or statement of his (Kirk's).
But you are late to the game with Kirk and have no context or understanding of his "schtick" so perhaps you should, you know, stay in your lane.
How about Wes Streeting as the shit one, then Pat McFadden as the wet one.
Interesting lesson though, falling into the trap of thinking that because I used to know a lot about a subject I still do.
That right?
He was someone who spent his entire adult life (like some of our MPs) solely in the political sphere. I don't think that's particularly healthy. But he wasn't an out and out political grenade thrower like (for example) a Stephen Miller.
This week's PMQs SKS said he had full confidence in Mandelson. Gone within 1 day
Hopefully someone asks if he has confidence in Kendall,Reeves, Streeting and SKS at next week's PMQs
But I suppose we're only on POLITICAL betting.com so where's the picture of that dog.
Although as Lab can't win a by election anywhere in the country atmosphere the chances are currently close to nil
Telegraph 2-0 Starmer inside a week.
I doubt most PBers had, either.
I put him into the Sunak role and call him wet. I can see McFadden standing at the podium with his 5 pledges behind him. STOP THE BOATS on the lectern. Delivering Fuck All.
Then during the 1960s and 1970s we helped the US with special forces and the use of our critical base in Hong Kong, the RAF flew supply missions to help the Americans though we didn't send ground troops or air strikes.
How's the reset going,
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/foreignaffairs/20250911/president-says-us-immigration-raid-on-korean-workers-could-deter-investments
.."You need skilled technicians to install equipment at a factory. The U.S. doesn’t have such personnel, yet visas for those coming for this purpose are not allowed," Lee said during the televised press conference when asked about the detainees.
"If this is not allowed, our companies will face all kinds of difficulties and disadvantages when setting up factories in the U.S., and they will inevitably question whether they should proceed. This may have a significant impact on their direct investments in the U.S."
The president added that as the two sides negotiate to obtain additional quotas or create a new visa category for Korean workers, Washington is likely to approach the issue from a practical standpoint.
The unprecedented immigration raid has rattled Seoul’s business community, leaving conglomerates wary of new investments after pouring billions into U.S. plants for semiconductors, automobiles and batteries in a bid to avoid tariffs and secure subsidies..
The BBC have tasted blood and won't stop until Farage is in No10.
Marie Le Conte
@youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com
only around a decade to go until another PM thinks "I know, I should hire Peter Mandelson"
A change of Prime Minister is now a credible option.
There are Pentecostals with Bishops, but they would embrace the RC/Anglican succession dogmas, and would go for the NT "overseer" meaning. And they would also apply the title to the leader of a congregation. COGIC, for example - Church of God in Christ, and it would tend to be black-ked Pentecostal denominations, not white ones.
WRT to Mr Trump, we need Evangelical Bishops in the USA. So Methodists in the USA. And, I think Continuing Anglicans splinters, such as ACNA. Just those are probably 15-20 million members or affiliates, so there's a chance !
So there's the opportunity for one to make Trump blush.
Blacks Es were overwhelmingly against Trump. I'm not sure about Chinese, Asian, Hispanic and so on.
You wouldn't understand a triviality like the rules of football in that naive manner. So it isn't true either for the complex ramifications of Christianity.