30p Lee Anderson justifies rioters, saying we all do daft things when young
Well I never broke a policeman’s jaw, looted a shop, destroyed a library, besieged a Mosque, burnt a police car or beat up a kid because he was black
#FarageRiots#FarRightThugs
https://t.co/lX1PUp4BWb
What an absolute weasel. Police dealing with a horrific murder and he thinks their prime role should be to make sure coked up fascists get the facts to prevent them from rioting. 1. Police have to be very careful about what they say. 2. Complicated by age of offender. 3. He knew exactly what he was doing but it has gone a bit too far so he is going into his nice Nigel reasonable on the radio mode. We talk about @Nigel_Farage “I don’t know … I’m only asking questions” shtick on @RestIsPolitics tomorrow.
I drove east into London on the A40 this afternoon. Light breeze, not too hot. London is always beautiful in the sunshine.
Drove past Uxbridge. No riots, no looters, no cars overturned and ablaze, no sirens.
Drove past Greenford. No riots, no looters, no cars overturned and ablaze, no sirens.
Drove past Acton. No riots, no looters, no cars overturned and ablaze, no sirens.
Parked in Westfield. There is sun, no sign of rain, but the full rainbow of humanity is here indoors.
(They say they want their country back, but they actually want their empire back, the one their grandparents' generation lost. The Empire came home. And here we all are! )
The shop assistants everywhere were from every corner of the earth. The customers the same. Girls and boys, men and women, from every place in the world, peacefully going about their lives on a London Sunday in a cathedral to capitalism in Shepherds Bush.
No shouting. No swearing. No mugging. No knifing. No looting. No burning. Just the world in one city under a giant glass roof in peace.
Sometimes, you don't know how good you actually have it. When London is good, it's really bloody good.
Most places in England are good, most of the time. Most people in England are good, no matter what the forces that seek to divide us want us to believe.
I remember being broke and homeless 20 years ago this year, carrying my possessions in four bags and thanking God for my legs when I was deep in my material nadir.
You already have your country. I already have my country. Both can be true.
I don't want to take your job, unless I'm better at it. I don't want to put shariah in place over your head and in any case, the law in this country is about as close to shariah as I need. Why would I endanger that just to piss you off for some marginal gain? Think about it.
We can get along. We are not enemies. Those grifters are fooling you, scamming you, and they're thick. They think 1+1=Foreigners. Their sums don't add up. They get tax breaks. Do you? Work it out.
We aren't going anywhere and we won't roll over frightened like our parents did. We belong here. We ARE the British Empire. This is the legacy.
It's not us you want your country back from. It's the foreign papers, the con artists who took COVID money, the scum who bought our water, the financial institutions who gambled away our future and made us pay for their next round of bonuses in an endless era of austerity. We didn't freeze old people to death. We didn't make food banks necessary. Cameron and Co did all that. We're just easy targets. A distraction.
This is still a beautiful country. This is still a peaceful country. How about we find away to make it better for all of us:?
Isn't London beautiful in the sunshine?
'I'm shocked to find out how many racist friends I have'.
Debbie Stokes, a local who works at a nearby library, said the disorder in Liverpool last night was 'disgusting'.
https://t.co/GEcOz1FFBa
It is absolutely ridiculous to throw out the slur that Labour want to keep children in poverty simply because they didn't lift the 2-child benefit cap within their first 18 days in office after 5,174 days in opposition.
One does not imply the other - that's a lazy, lazy argument.
Look at the full context:
1. This was a vote on the Kings Speech, the first and most high profile vote since Labour took office (and for a long time to come). A rebellion was obviously therefore going to be deeply embarrassing - and the rebels were absolutely aware of that.
2. Labour ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility. This was clear as daylight to every Labour candidate. It's not some wild swerve foisted on them after the election was won.
3. Labour are working at speed to produce a full picture of the economic situation the Tories left us in. That should be published before the summer recess. Things may look different within days. (For better or worse? We'll have to await the report.)
4. Labour have said they are reviewing concrete action to alleviate child poverty. Are the rebels claiming they're lying?
5. Senior Labour figures have indicated the 2-child benefit cap is potentially part of the wider review.
6. This was an SNP amendment. Supporting it was pure performative politics. It was never going to pass in a trillion years.
7. To come back to where we started, not voting for the amendment is not the same as seeking to keep children in poverty, wanting to keep children in poverty, planning to keep children in poverty, delighting in keeping children in poverty, or whatever other emotional framing lazy people choose to resort to instead of making a logical analytical argument.
A painful related truth: the hard Left of the party has a problem. They need to stay visible to stay relevant. It's like sharks have to keep swimming or they die. (That's a metaphor. It doesn't mean I think they're sharks. Sigh.) They therefore thrive on outrage farming just as much as those on the other extreme of politics, even though their actual political views are poles apart. One way to increase that visibility very quickly is to pick opportunities to have highly visible fights with the core party and the leadership.
That's what happened last night. Nothing more. Nothing less. No nefarious plot to keep children in poverty (or "starving" as the even more emotionally manipulative put it).
Starmer had two choices:
1) Let the rebellion go
2) Take strict action
1) would have given every group and faction within Labour the green light to start creating their own version of the ERG, Common Sense Group, or whatever they wanted to call themselves. Soon, the party would be as riven as the Tories were. Imagine herding those cats for the next 5 years!
Instead, by doing 2), Starmer called the bluff of people who knew exactly what they were doing.
Did Starmer's action indicate Labour won't lift the cap? No. It told us nothing of the sort.
Did Starmer's action indicate Labour are fine with child poverty? No. It told us nothing of the sort.
If in a few months - around the Autumn statement or shortly thereafter - Labour are still grinding their gears on child poverty without any progress, then you have the right to be aggrieved.
But 18 days into their term of office, and after all the clear signals they're trying to do the right thing as swiftly as prudence allows? Get over yourself.
"We said it would be cheaper to put asylum seekers up in the Paris Ritz, now it turns out it would actually be cheaper to buy the Paris Ritz"
After James Cleverly spews some nonsense - which I'm not posting - Yvette Cooper eviscerates him
"Let's be clear what we have inherited from him and his party.. We've had the highest level of crossings ever.. That happened under his party.. Gangs on the French coast and our country.. Asylum support costs to rise to £30 billion"
"As for Rwanda as a deterrent.. 4 volunteers being sent to Rwanda isn't a deterrent to anyone for anything at all"
"Then the idea he would spend £10 billion on this fantasy.. £700 million has been spent on four volunteers than in 2 years"
Must watch
Steve Reed tears about 14 years of Conservative rule
He then explains why countryside voters have abandoned the Conservative party for the Labour party @SteveReedMP
It's a long, nearly 9 minute watch, but it is glorious
Why has legal action not been taken against the Directors of Thames Water?
It is illegal for a company to pay out dividends or trade while insolvent under the Companies Act 2006, S 830: If a company is insolvent, it means it does not have sufficient distributable profits, and thus, paying dividends would be illegal. Directors who authorise such payments can be held personally liable to repay the unlawfully distributed dividends.
Insolvency Act 1986:Wrongful Trading (Section 214): Directors can be held personally liable if they continue to trade when they knew, or ought to have concluded, that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation.
Legal Consequences for
Directors engaging in trading while insolvent or authorise unlawful dividend payments can face the below:
- Personal liability for company debts
- Disqualification from serving as a director for up to 15 years
- Criminal charges, particularly in cases of fraudulent trading
If I were elected MP for #Epsom #Ewell #Ashtead and #Leatherhead I would be pursuing this!
@GinaForEpsom
These are not controversial questions that Holden is being asked…
It’s simple
If you don’t have the guts to explain yourself
Then either don’t do the thing you don’t want to have to explain
Or get your cowardly arse out of politics.
Wow! #BBCQT
Mark Harper repeats Rishi Sunak's lie about the £2,000 Labour tax
Fiona Bruce calls him out on it
Mark Harper doubles down
Fiona Bruce reads out the letter
Mark Harper triples down on it
Shabana Mahmood jumps in and calls him out
Look at Mark Harpers face - he knows he's telling lies and yet he carries on, Shameful
Michelle Mone can be expelled from the House of Lords by a simple majority vote in the Commons, and then in the House of Lords.
Like if she needs to go.
RT if she has to go.