Grumpy git

Definitely not convinced about climate change,big con,the jury still out about men walking on the moon,hate pc,voted brexit that apparently makes me a racist.

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

The BBC Has Ruled. Brexit Damaged The Economy. No Further Debate Required.

The BBC's editorial complaints unit has decided that the negative economic impact of Brexit is now a settled fact. Not a contested judgement. Not one side of a live debate. A fact, in the same category as man-made climate change, requiring no balancing view.

The ruling followed a Radio 4 Today programme segment featuring Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, alongside Liam Byrne and Sir John Gieve, both long-standing advocates of closer EU alignment. All three agreed Brexit had damaged growth. The presenter, Katya Adler, did not challenge the premise or introduce a dissenting voice. A complaint followed.

The ECU's response is the revealing part. It acknowledged the segment failed to "acknowledge the alternative case" for pursuing opportunities outside the EU rather than realignment with it. That part of the complaint was upheld. But the central complaint, that three pro-EU voices agreeing with each other on air is not balance, was dismissed. The reasoning given was that this reflected "the consensus among economists" and there was no "significant body of economic opinion" on the other side.

This is worth pausing on. The BBC is not claiming it found balance. It is claiming balance was unnecessary because one side of the argument does not meaningfully exist. The institution that is legally required to be impartial has ruled itself the arbiter of which questions are still open and which are closed, and Brexit has just been moved into the closed file.

The economics itself does not support the certainty on display. The headline figure driving much of this narrative, an 8 per cent hit to GDP since 2016, comes from an NBER paper built on a "synthetic control" model that constructs a hypothetical non-Brexit Britain from a basket of comparator countries. The largest weighting in that basket, over 60 per cent, is the United States, a country currently riding an AI investment boom and a separate fiscal stimulus. The model also weights Estonia and Greece more heavily than France or Germany. On a straightforward per capita basis against France and Germany, the actual comparators, Britain's performance since 2016 sits roughly in line with both. An 8 per cent gap simply isn't visible. This is a model producing a number that then gets reported as "the consensus," which the BBC then cites as the reason no alternative view is required.

That loop, model produces number, number becomes consensus, consensus becomes fact, fact requires no balance, is the mechanism. It does not require a conspiracy. It requires an institution that has decided which conclusions are respectable and which are not, and which then treats its own prior decision as evidence.

The same posture has been on display all week. A government department can decide its diversity targets are lawful without seeking legal advice to check. A police force can decide a book about dismantling "inner white supremacy" is leadership training. A broadcaster can decide an economic question is closed and that deciding so does not breach its own impartiality rules. In each case, the institution marks its own homework, and the mark is always a pass.

None of this requires Brexit to have been a triumph. Britain's economy has genuine problems, most of them unrelated to single market membership. But a state broadcaster, funded by compulsory licence fee under threat of prosecution, has now formally placed one of the most consequential political decisions in modern British history beyond the reach of its own impartiality obligations. Reform's Lee Anderson called it being "blinkered by groupthink." The more precise description is an institution that has stopped being able to tell the difference between its own assumptions and the facts.

"The BBC is not claiming it found balance. It is claiming balance was unnecessary because one side of the argument does not meaningfully exist."

[Grumpy git @Grumpygit20]

@JChimirie66677 Always an excellent article

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

The Asylum Backlog Hit 87,450. The Terror Watchdog Warned of a Security Risk

87,450 people are in the asylum appeals backlog. That is roughly the population of Carlisle. Imagine every man, woman and child in that city, waiting in a queue that grows by the day, more than double the number of new asylum claims made in the same year.

The numbers published this week should stop a government in its tracks. The backlog is up 71.5 percent in a single year. 70 percent of rejected claimants now appeal. 40 percent of those rejected remain in Britain regardless. Of the more than 200,000 people who have crossed the Channel illegally since 2018, only around 4 percent have ever been removed. The system is not failing to cope with the numbers. The system is the numbers.

The Home Office describes this as progress, pointing to a 72 percent fall in the initial decision backlog since 2023. What it does not say is where those decisions went. They went into the appeals system, where the backlog has more than doubled. Speeding up the front door while leaving the back door unchanged relocates the queue and multiplies it, because every rejected claimant who appeals is entitled to taxpayer-funded accommodation while they wait. The National Audit Office puts the total cost at £4.9 billion for 2024-25, with £2.1 billion spent on hotels alone.

Shabana Mahmood's response is to legislate again, restricting Article 8 family life claims to immediate family, requiring judges to prioritise public safety, and setting a 28-week limit on appeals. That legislation implicitly admits the current framework has allowed dubious family connections to block removal, that judges have not been prioritising public safety, and that appeals have run indefinitely. These are not new problems Mahmood has discovered. They have been documented for years by anyone willing to look, while those who raised them were told they were exaggerating or that no evidence existed.

Then there is Jonathan Hall. Not a commentator. Not an activist. The government's own Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, a King's Counsel appointed specifically to provide neutral expert assessment of the law. This week, in the aftermath of the Belfast stabbing and the riots that followed, Hall said publicly that immigration must be assessed in national security terms, that certain nationalities present elevated risk profiles for serious violence, and that trauma among asylum seekers from conflict zones may compound that risk further. Foreign nationals accounted for one in seven sexual offence convictions in 2024. Hall is not speculating. He is the most senior independent legal authority on terrorism law in the country, and he has said the system as it stands is a security risk.

The government's response to Hall's intervention was silence. He raised it through proper channels. Nobody answered.

So here is where Britain stands. An appeals backlog larger than the population of an entire English city, growing at 71.5 percent a year. A removal rate of 4 percent for illegal arrivals. A National Audit Office report confirming the cost is disproportionately high and driven by delay. A Home Secretary legislating to fix problems that amount to an admission the system has been broken in exactly the ways critics described. And a terror watchdog, appointed by the government itself, warning that the entire framework constitutes a national security risk, met with silence from the department responsible for it.

This is not a system under strain. It is a system working exactly as designed. Faster removals, restricted appeals, leaving the ECHR, every lever has been available for years and none pulled with urgency. The backlog will keep growing. The removal rate will stay near zero. Somewhere in that queue of 87,450, the next Belfast is already waiting its turn.

"In the aftermath of the Belfast stabbing and the riots that followed, Hall said publicly that immigration must be assessed in national security terms"

[Grumpy git @Grumpygit20]

@Neccccy @HaineSharan Absolutely and imprisoned

[Grumpy git @Grumpygit20]

@Will_iam_001 He didn’t say that!

[Grumpy git @Grumpygit20]

@Sabiha1278 @GeorgeC64612524 Yes all 1.3 million of them

[Artur Nadolny @ArturNadol7566]

UK GOVERNMENT SACKED ITS OWN BORDER WATCHDOG

David Neal was the man the government hired to inspect UK borders and make sure they actually worked. He did exactly that. What he found was not good. He wrote it all up in official reports. The Home Office locked those reports in a drawer.

When he finally went to a newspaper to warn the public that private planes were landing in the UK with almost nobody checking who was on them, the Home Secretary James Cleverly @JamesCleverly fired him.

Here is what Neal actually found.

At London City Airport, only 21% of flights flagged as high risk were checked by immigration officers.

Not some of the time. As a yearly average.

He said it was a scandal and dangerous for the country.

The Home Office said he had the numbers wrong. Then they fired him.

At the moment he was sacked, the @HomeOffice was holding back 15 of his finished inspection reports. Some had been sitting there for 18 months without being shown to the public.

The agreed deadline for publishing them was eight weeks. Not one report met that deadline across his entire three years in the job.

When they finally released 13 of the reports, they chose to do it on the same afternoon that a separate major inquiry published its findings... Draw your own conclusions.

What was actually in those reports? Border control posts left with nobody manning them. Officers at e-passport gates described as distracted and without basic radios. The whole airport border operation rated as neither effective nor efficient.

Neal told MPs directly: I have been sacked for doing my job.

He also told @BBC the Home Office is dysfunctional and described senior officials rolling their eyes when he brought them his findings.

He said the government contacted him three separate times warning him not to speak publicly about the unpublished reports.

He had almost no other way to get the information out.

The people who fired him for raising border security concerns were the same people who spent years promising the public they had taken back control of the borders.

Sources: @BBCNews @guardian @DailyMail @CommonsHomeAffs

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

This morning Britain woke up without a Defence Secretary. By this evening it had lost two more ministers.

John Healey resigned because the Treasury refused to fund the defence of this country adequately. Pamela Nash, Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Defence Secretary, resigned in his wake. And Al Carns DSO OBE MC, the Minister for Veterans, resigned because he could not in good conscience ask fellow veterans to trust a process he no longer trusts himself.

Read that again. A man decorated for combat service with a Distinguished Service Order, an OBE and a Military Cross resigned as Veterans Minister today because he knows the Defence Investment Plan is inadequate and cannot stand at a despatch box and pretend otherwise. His letter says we ask soldiers to fight for this country. In return we owe them the kit to do the job and the loyalty to stand by them when it's done. We are failing on both.

Healey's letter says the country could be made less safe. Carns says the deal this country makes with the people who serve it in uniform is broken. Nash says the country is more divided now than at any point in her lifetime. Three resignation letters. Three verdicts. Written by people who were inside the room.

The Chief of the Defence Staff wrote directly to the Prime Minister warning the money was not enough. The head of the British armed forces writing directly to Downing Street is not a routine communication. It is a signal of desperation. Starmer ignored it.

Ed Miliband's net zero budget remains untouched. The welfare budget remains untouched. The DEI infrastructure embedded across British institutions continues to be funded. The £10 billion in asylum accommodation contracts continues. Every commitment that flows from the 2030 Agenda adopted without a single British vote at a UN summit in 2015 has been protected. The defence of the realm has not.

[Grumpy git @Grumpygit20]

@PhilMyers53 Nothing to do with net zero,welfare,giving billions to the Ukraine,borrowing money to give to foreign governments,putting illegals in hotels or HMOs,FFS

[Christian @InTheTrenchesUK]

THE DOSSIER #15: Keir Rodney Starmer – The Blueprint

A Palestinian ambassador stroked your arm on live television. Nuzzled close. Whispered into your ear. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom stood paralysed while the world watched a foreign agent handle him like a marionette.

That was not an incident. That was a portrait. The defining image of your premiership. The single frame that explained everything.

Because you have always been someone else's instrument.

Born 2 September 1962. Southwark. A toolmaker father. A nurse mother. Named after Keir Hardie because your parents wrote your career before you drew breath. Reigate Grammar. Leeds. Oxford. Harvard. LSE. The working-class costume tailored on Savile Row.

You are not a self-made man. You are a manufactured one. The Fabian Society shaped you. The Trilateral Commission claimed you that secretive CIA-linked global elite network you joined while serving in Corbyn's shadow cabinet, off-the-record, accountable to no British voter. The networks you serve have never been British. The interests you protect never were.

The Original Sin ..........

You became Director of Public Prosecutions. Five years. The power to act. The duty to act. The evidence in front of you.
You looked away.

Rochdale, 2009. The CPS dropped charges against grooming gang suspects citing "victim credibility concerns." Twelve-year-old girls. Drugged. Raped. Trafficked. The institution you led called them unreliable witnesses to their own destruction.

Jimmy Savile, same year. Case closed on your watch. "I wasn't told," you said. The Director of Public Prosecutions wasn't informed about Britain's most prolific paedophile. Either you lie or you were asleep. Both are disqualifying.

Maggie Oliver, the whistleblower, the detective who saw the bodies, named your CPS as bearing "great responsibility" for the failures. She was there. She knew. She named you.

You learned the technique that defines you in that decade: look away when looking away serves the careerist. Protect predators when prosecuting them is inconvenient. Choose institutional comfort over child safety. Every day since has been an application of that lesson.

The Pattern Becomes Policy ..........

December 2024. You appointed Peter Mandelson United States Ambassador. The official vetting warned you in writing of "general reputational risk" because of his Epstein ties. You knew Mandelson stayed at Epstein's property after Epstein served jail time for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

You read every warning. You appointed him anyway.

The man who shielded grooming gangs as DPP elevated a paedophile's friend to the highest diplomatic rank in the Atlantic alliance. This was not error. It was continuity. The same instinct, larger scale.

September 2024. Ten million pensioners stripped of winter fuel payments. Up to £300 each. You sat in Number 10 while the elderly chose between food and heat. "We are fixing the foundations," you said. "It's the right thing to do."

Then you took £100,000 from Lord Alli. Suits. Glasses. Concert tickets. A flat for your son. The Prime Minister who froze pensioners dressed in donated tailoring. "Let me be crystal clear," you said. You were never clear. You were calculated.

February 2025. Chagos. British sovereign territory surrendered to Mauritius. £100 million per year for the privilege of being humiliated. You called it international law. The British people called it treason.

March 2026. One hundred pages of files released. The New York Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, the Guardian, AP every serious newsroom on earth confirmed the receipts. You were warned. You proceeded. Mandelson now under police investigation for allegedly leaking government documents to a dead paedophile.

April 20, 2026. You stood in the Commons and admitted you "inadvertently misled Parliament." Inadvertently. The barrister who built a career on precision. The man who wrote the 900-page Human Rights Act manual word by word. "Inadvertently." The weasel grammar of a guilty man hoping no one parses the verb.

The Domestic Record ..........

You ran two-tier policing and called the people who noticed it "far-right." You arrested grandmothers for tweets while gangs raped children in plain sight. You called working-class grief "thuggery." You called legitimate fear "Islamophobia." You called concern about borders "racism."

You hiked employer National Insurance and killed fifty thousand jobs. You broke your own fiscal rules twice. Bond markets fled. Capital fled. Skilled workers fled. The economy you inherited at 1.5% growth you handed to recession.

Your children attend private school. You live in grace-and-favour residences. You holiday in donor villas. You preach sacrifice from luxury you neither earned nor declared. You are the champagne socialist made flesh and the toolmaker's son is the costume you wear to the gala.

The Verdict of Your Own Side ..........

By May 2026, one hundred Labour MPs had publicly called for your resignation. The New York Times: "viscerally disliked." The Lowy Institute: "conclusively sapped of his authority." The party you led to landslide victory writes your obituary in public, in real time, before you have left the building.

You are not betrayed by enemies. You are buried by allies. There is no clearer verdict in democratic politics.

The Blueprint ..........

You did one good thing for Britain, and you did it by accident.

You gave us the manual.

Every appointment must be reversed. Every policy must be unwound. Every institution you touched must be rebuilt. Your premiership is the instruction text for national destruction, and reading it backwards is the path home.

You are not a Prime Minister. You are a warning carved into our recent history. The cautionary tale every future leader will be measured against. The negative reference point. The example of what one man can do to a nation when he serves Davos before Doncaster, donors before pensioners, ideology before instinct.

The toolmaker's son who learned only to dismantle.

The prosecutor who protected predators.

The barrister who broke a country with words.

The Prime Minister who stood paralysed while a foreign ambassador whispered orders into his ear, and the British people understood, in a single frozen frame, exactly what had happened to their country.

We saw you, Sir Keir.

The world saw you.

History has seen you.

And history does not forgive what it has seen.

Your betrayal of Britain is now complete. Permanent exile awaits. Congratulations. You are The Dossier.

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

Agenda 2030 Or The Defence Of The Realm. Starmer Has Made His Choice. John Healey Has Resigned Over It.

This morning Britain woke up without a Defence Secretary. By lunchtime it knew why.

The numbers tell the story precisely. The Ministry of Defence faces a £28 billion funding shortfall over four years. Healey wanted £18 billion. He was offered £13.5 billion of which defence chiefs regarded only £10 billion as real money. The remaining £3.5 billion was, in the words of the Telegraph, invented through magical accounting tricks. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, took the unusual step of writing directly to Starmer to warn that the money was not enough. The head of the British armed forces writing directly to the Prime Minister is not a routine communication. It is a signal of desperation.

Starmer told NATO last week that it is our intelligence assessment that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030. Those are his words. His government's assessment. Shared with our allies. Four years away. And his Treasury offered the man responsible for defending against that threat an accounting trick and a two page summary instead of a funded plan. Why. Because the money was needed elsewhere.

In 2015 every United Nations member state including Britain signed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Its 17 goals and 169 targets commit signatory nations to facilitating migration, eliminating inequality, achieving net zero and embedding inclusive institutions. No British parliament voted on it. No British public was consulted. It was adopted at a UN summit and has been implemented ever since through regulatory frameworks, public sector guidance and institutional capture rather than democratic mandate. It is not a conspiracy. It is a publicly available document on the UN website. And its priorities, net zero, welfare, migration, DEI, are precisely the budgets this government has protected while offering the defence of the realm an accounting trick.

Ed Miliband refused to cut his net zero budget to fund defence. The Labour Party refused to cut welfare spending that would have freed up billions. The £10 billion in asylum accommodation contracts continues. The DEI infrastructure embedded across British policing, the NHS, the civil service and the education system continues to be funded. Every one of these is a commitment that takes precedence over the defence of the realm in this government's spending decisions.

The hierarchy of priorities is now visible. A government that has spent two years embedding progressive transformation across British institutions, protecting the net zero agenda from cuts and managing mass migration has discovered that it cannot simultaneously do all of that and defend the country. When the moment of decision arrived the progressive agenda was protected and the armed forces were handed a two page summary and told to make do.

Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General, warned in April that Britain was underprepared, underinsured and under attack. He said there was a corrosive complacency in Britain's political leadership. The army has been reduced to its smallest size in 200 years. Seven warships have been axed. The Defence Investment Plan was due last autumn, delayed through winter, missed its spring deadline and has now produced the resignation of the Defence Secretary on the day it was finally meant to be published.

Healey's letter says without a plan that meets the moment he is being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces, increase the risk to personnel on operations and could make the country less safe. He had no other option but to resign.

In the most dangerous security environment since the Cold War a Labour government has chosen the globalist agenda over the defence of the realm. That choice has now cost it its Defence Secretary. The question is what it will cost the country.

[Grumpy git @Grumpygit20]

@PhilMyers53 He is a despicable man,Starmer and Hermer are domestic terrorists they should be in the tower not in power

[Grumpy git @Grumpygit20]

@Alinavisoo_life Get another dog 🐕

[Grumpy git @Grumpygit20]

@ZackPolanski You greens are such a waste of space to get rid of the violence you need to know the cause. Which is the two tier government and idiots who welcomed undocumented illegal migration

[Grumpy git @Grumpygit20]

@JChimirie66677 Starmer and Hermer are despicable they should be ashamed and nowhere near a seat of power they are the most hated men in the country hopefully they will get what they deserve

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

Starmer and Hermer Built the Machine Together. Now They Run the Country.

In 2007, two barristers worked without pay on a case that would change the legal landscape for every British soldier who had served in Iraq. Keir Starmer and Richard Hermer appeared as interveners in Al-Skeini v Secretary of State for Defence, representing eleven human rights organisations including Amnesty International and Liberty. Their argument was that the European Convention on Human Rights should apply to British forces operating overseas. They lost in the Court of Appeal. They appealed to the House of Lords. They lost again. But the legal principle they had argued for eventually prevailed at the European Court of Human Rights, and what followed was the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, sixty million pounds of public money, seven years of investigations, and not a single prosecution. The soldiers it pursued were, in almost every case, found to have acted properly.

Starmer believed in it enough to do it for free. Johnny Mercer, who spent years dismantling the consequences, put it plainly. Starmer had insisted on doing it for free. That is not the behaviour of a barrister following the cab rank rule. That is ideological conviction.

Hermer's conviction, it subsequently emerged, was not without financial reward once the machinery was running. Documents obtained by the Daily Telegraph show that having helped establish the legal architecture pro bono in 2007, Hermer then used that same architecture to pursue Iraqi claims against British soldiers at £450 an hour, fifty percent higher than the only other KC involved in the group action. He set his success fee at the maximum level permitted, one hundred percent of his normal rate. The MoD's own lawyers challenged his fees as excessive and said he was too junior to command that rate. He is thought to have earned around six figures from the broader group action. The claims he was pursuing were eventually ruled to be deliberate lies. The soldiers were fully exonerated.

Sergeant Richie Catterall had been cleared of wrongdoing by the British Army in 2003 for a fatal shooting in Basra. The Army found he had acted in self-defence. The legal precedent Starmer and Hermer established triggered two further investigations spanning thirteen years. A 2016 inquiry again concluded he had acted in self-defence and found a false document had been created to shift blame onto the military. Catterall was finally exonerated. He told the Telegraph he was gutted that Starmer had helped bring the case against him and that the Prime Minister owed him an apology.

Starmer is now Prime Minister. Hermer is now Attorney General, appointed by Starmer personally, elevated to the House of Lords specifically for the role, chosen over Emily Thornberry who had held the shadow brief. The former head of the Army, General Sir Peter Wall, has said Hermer's role in the Al-Sweady claims was tantamount to treason. A former commanding officer of 22 SAS said Hermer must step down. The Bar Standards Board has been asked to investigate. Nigel Farage has reported Hermer to the House of Lords standards commissioner.

The Troubles Bill that is now subjecting Northern Ireland veterans to the same lawfare is not an accident of policy. The process that drove Fred, a special forces veteran, to attempt suicide after his medical records were handed to terrorists' families was not an oversight. The machine that cost sixty million pounds and produced no prosecutions was not a mistake. Starmer and Hermer built it together, one working for free out of conviction, the other later working for maximum fees out of the same conviction, and now both occupy the positions from which they can ensure the machine keeps running.

[David Shaw @David90shaw]

🚨TWO TIER STARMER HAS SPOKEN.
When an asylum seeker tries to butcher a man in broad daylight, the Prime Minister tells the British public to "stay calm."

But the absolute second everyday people take to the streets to protest his open borders disaster, he immediately threatens them with the "full force of the law." 🤡

He cannot find the police to stop a burglary or a stabbing, but he will magically find thousands of officers to lock you up for being angry about it.

They despise the working class and they are not even hiding it anymore.

RT if you are completely sick of this rigged two tier justice system! 🇬🇧🔥

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

The House of Commons Justice Committee has delivered its verdict on the Government’s plans to slash our ancient right to trial by jury.

It is scathing — and will make tough reading for the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, @DavidLammy.

The Government has introduced the most sweeping constitutional reforms to the criminal justice system in years at breakneck speed, despite not having promised them in its manifesto. It seems to be allergic to scrutiny.

The Justice Secretary claims that curbing our precious right to jury trial will save Crown Court time and reduce the backlog of cases. Yet the Committee acknowledges that there is no concrete evidential basis for this claim. In fact, the Institute for Government has said the reforms would save only 2 per cent of court time, not the 20 per cent ministers have promised.

David Lammy’s 2017 review found that juries are one of the few parts of the criminal justice system where black and minority ethnic defendants do not face disproportionate outcomes. This Bill reduces the role of juries while simultaneously expanding that of the judiciary, despite only 1 per cent of Crown Court judges being black.

Back in December 2025, Lammy himself said the reforms would not be applied retrospectively. That is no longer the case. Defendants expecting a jury trial could now have their mode of trial changed without a hearing.

The Free Speech Union’s research has shown that those accused of speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be found not guilty in the Crown Court before a jury than in a magistrates’ court without one.

Judges, lawyers, opposition MPs, Labour MPs, and even victims of crime have warned that David Lammy’s reforms will undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

We must defend our right to trial by jury.

Read the Justice Committee’s report below 👇

[Grumpy git @Grumpygit20]

@Keir_Starmer Snake oil Starmer and his Islamic Labour government is problem with this country, Two Tier Keir,two tier policing and the corrupt judiciary system.Two years for throwing a stone,slap on the wrist for rape FFS

[David Shaw @David90shaw]

🚨 Keir Starmer is standing in Parliament today promising billions for NATO and new defence investments to impress the global elite at the July summit.

This is the same man who cannot keep British citizens safe walking down their own streets. Who told the public to "stay calm" after what happened in Belfast. Who releases terrorists early against expert advice. Who arrests people for tweets while knife crime hits record levels.

He will defend Ukraine's borders. He will defend NATO's reputation. He will defend whatever the international establishment needs him to defend.

He just will not defend you.

RT if you want a Prime Minister who puts British people first. 🇬🇧