Farrukh

Content Creator 🤓
Photo Video & Drone Pilot 🎥
Entrepreneur & Tech Geek 🤖
Food Judge 😋
And now news as frustrated 👀
[email protected]

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

Good morning, opening with the Eurofighter, Fursan Al Emarat and a Chinook at #FIA2026

We fly into the show with Blade, meet Joby's test pilot Buddy, chat to a Black Hawk pilot encouraging girls into STEM, and test Soundcore's ANC earbuds with the very loud air display ✈️🚁

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

What makes this especially disappointing is that you plainly know the difference between right and wrong.

You had 20 months as Prime Minister to offer a confident counter-narrative: that Britain can control immigration fairly while refusing to make belonging conditional on race; that integration is strengthened by solidarity, not suspicion.

Instead, you chose “Stop the Boats”, Rwanda and culture-war framing - exploiting division to win and sustain power. So while you now complain about the ugly consequences, you cannot detach yourself from the politics that helped create them.

Worst of all, you are now writing about the very problems your own government helped create, stoke and worsen. You recognised the danger of defining belonging through race, but chose politics that made fear, exclusion and resentment more useful than national unity. That is not simply a missed opportunity; it is a profound failure of leadership.

And I still cannot get out of my head how readily you dismissed so many questions at the Covid Inquiry. It left the impression that protecting Boris Johnson and the political machine mattered more than full candour for the bereaved.

That sort of wheeler-dealing is more Del Boy and Rodney than the magnanimous, principled leadership the country needed from you.

For many of us, seeing a brown British Hindu become Prime Minister was genuinely exciting, a huge cultural leap for this country and proof of the progress you describe.

But, like Zia Yusuf, you chose to swing from the same divisive rhetorical tree; in his case, sadly, even further. Both of you should have been setting a better example of confident, inclusive Britishness. Instead, you flopped.

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

@munyachawawa Tragically accurate.

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

On 12 October, Parliament will debate the UK's future relationship with Europe - ask your MP to rejoin the EU

https://t.co/mHxktfWVQa

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

@Banned_Reunion Blimey! Man worth over £15 billion wants the UK gov to spend £200–£300 million, instead of forking out for it himself. Shameful.

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

Laura Kuenssberg asks if it bothers Labour's Bridget Phillipson that people who create jobs and pay a lot of tax, citing, Jim Ratcliffe, move abroad - except, that's not the full story.

My View: Did you know companies owned by Jim Ratcliffe have received public support worth around £630 million, based on reported UK and European measures?

That includes up to £70m in UK state aid, a £150m Grangemouth support package, €300m of French support for the Lavéra site, and a reported €178m in German tax support. Not all of this is a direct cash grant - but it is still substantial public backing.

Yet Ratcliffe criticises welfare spending while many working people need support because low pay does not cover the cost of living.

And despite building his fortune through a British-founded business, he moved his tax residence to Monaco - a move reported at the time to be capable of avoiding £4 billion in UK tax.

He has also criticised immigration in the UK, where around 19% of people were born abroad. Yet he has chosen to live in Monaco, where around 76% of residents are non-Monégasque, making it one of the most immigrant-heavy countries in the world.

That is the contradiction: public support for a billionaire’s companies is treated as investment; support for working people is treated as dependency. He benefits from the state when it protects his interests, but attacks those who need the state to protect theirs.

I’d rather celebrate entrepreneurs who build successful businesses while recognising a responsibility to the country and communities that helped make that success possible.

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

It's even worse than that.

He complains about working people on benefits getting support because companies don't pay enough for them to live off of their salaries alone.

But has himself taken over £630 million in public support from the UK, French and German governments.

https://t.co/DCbFM93nJz

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

Laura Kuenssberg asks if it bothers Labour's Bridget Phillipson that people who create jobs and pay a lot of tax, citing, Jim Ratcliffe, move abroad - except, that's not the full story.

My View: Did you know companies owned by Jim Ratcliffe have received public support worth around £630 million, based on reported UK and European measures?

That includes up to £70m in UK state aid, a £150m Grangemouth support package, €300m of French support for the Lavéra site, and a reported €178m in German tax support. Not all of this is a direct cash grant - but it is still substantial public backing.

Yet Ratcliffe criticises welfare spending while many working people need support because low pay does not cover the cost of living.

And despite building his fortune through a British-founded business, he moved his tax residence to Monaco - a move reported at the time to be capable of avoiding £4 billion in UK tax.

He has also criticised immigration in the UK, where around 19% of people were born abroad. Yet he has chosen to live in Monaco, where around 76% of residents are non-Monégasque, making it one of the most immigrant-heavy countries in the world.

That is the contradiction: public support for a billionaire’s companies is treated as investment; support for working people is treated as dependency. He benefits from the state when it protects his interests, but attacks those who need the state to protect theirs.

I’d rather celebrate entrepreneurs who build successful businesses while recognising a responsibility to the country and communities that helped make that success possible.

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

Yep, an absolute disaster from @edsheeran being made even worse. Lots of waffle.

All he had to say is that he got it wrong for not standing up for his buddy, and acknowledge that he does use his platform for politics eg Ukraine but chose not to for Palestine, and that he'll do better going forward.

Instead, it was this. What a shame.

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

@SamWlandscapes 👏

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

Left: Ed Sheeran on tour at Philadelphia’s Lincoln Financial Field, "I've tried in my career not to be a political commentator at any time"

Right: Except that time Ed Sheeran shot a music video in Kyiv, then did a concert for Ukraine, because, "I just wanted to so something, rather than not do anything"

My view: I struggle with Ed Sheeran saying he has “tried not to be a political commentator” and wants his music to be about “unity, not division.”

Because in 2022 he performed at Concert for Ukraine.

There was nothing wrong with that. But Ukraine was also war, geopolitics and an intensely political issue.

So the problem is not that Sheeran speaks about some causes and not others. He is entitled to make that choice.

The problem is pretending that one is simply “humanity” while another suddenly becomes “politics” when it is more controversial.

That creates the impression that some political causes are acceptable enough to use your platform for, while others are too risky.

And that double standard is more off-putting than simply being open and saying: I spoke about Ukraine, I was more reluctant to speak about Palestine, and I got that wrong.

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

@bernherts ☺️🙏

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

Good morning, happy Sunday ☺️

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

@czesc_Haniu 👏

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

Nobody has said political parties can paint whatever they like on private property.

If it was unauthorised, fine: establish that and say so.

But it appeared, drew attention, and was painted over within hours in a Labour controlled borough during a by-election where Labour suddenly has a serious Green challenge.

Surely it is entirely legitimate to ask whether the removal was routine enforcement, owner-led, or political damage control.

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

Hours after this huge "Vote Green Party Zack" mural appeared in Camden, it had been painted over.

We do not yet know who ordered its removal. But Camden Council is Labour-controlled, and this is happening just as @ZackPolanski and the Greens are becoming a genuine electoral threat in the Holborn & St Pancras by-election.

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

@StevieRSmith89 @CarlosBenitosVI @ZackPolanski @grok I used AI to put the two photos together, one on top of the other 👍

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

@Kit_Yates_Maths 👏

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

@atamblyn04 @ZackPolanski They missed out the rest of the graffiti 🤷

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

@DanEdisonComedy 😅👏

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

@SholaMos1 😱

[Farrukh @implausibleblog]

@ZackPolanski Good luck!