Craig Campbell

Glasgow, Scotland, UK, Europe. Own my opinions.

[Liberal Democrats @LibDems]

Putin's war is still raging. Ukrainians are still being killed.

Russia should be nowhere near the Olympics.

The IOC must reverse this shameful decision.

@tomgordonLD

[🍁☘️Canadian Fletchy 🇨🇦 @Darth_Pingu]

BREAKING: They've changed the name

[Craig Campbell @vicshere]

@calwokebot Jacques Brel and Tintin

[Taner @fmdestekcom]

Balogun olayından sonra Belçika - Amerika maçı

[Troll Football Media @TrollFootball2]

I love Mexicans 😂

[Juez Central @Juezcentral]

La historia dirá que la selección de Cabo Verde, proveniente de una isla con 500.000 habitantes, en la que nadie creía, le empató a España, a Arabia y a Uruguay, clasificando a 16vos, y llevó al Campeón del Mundo a tiempo extra, presionando hasta el final.

Es la historia del Mundial.

Nunca se olvidará a estos muchachos 💙

[LB✌🏽 @Londonblue_2]

I find it odd how the English media are doubling down on this one. It’s clear as day that he’s taken a dive. Nobody who’s been genuinely impeded falls that way.

Just call it as it is 🤷🏽‍♂️

[The Ref’s View @TheRefsView]

That is a blatant attempt to deceive the Referee. The only criticism is that Kane wasn’t cautioned for simulation

[Craig Campbell @vicshere]

@themichaelowen Dive. Yellow card.

[Chris Sutton @chris_sutton73]

Harry dived…

[Football Plundit @SoccerTactics]

Kane dived, and I am an English man. Shearer is just being biased on commentary. #engdrc

[Craig Campbell @vicshere]

@henrywinter Dive. Should have been booked.

[Anton Gerashchenko @Gerashchenko_en]

"Gasoline wars" is probably the best way to describe what's happening at gas stations across Russia right now.

After 26 years of Putin's rule, Russia is bankrupt - a corrupt, impoverished country that is running out of fuel. It is hated across the civilized world.

Ukraine is now destroying Putin’s last myth - that Russia has a powerful army, navy, and air force. In reality, Putin cannot even protect Moscow. The rest of Russia is even less defended.

If Putin is remembered at all, it will be as a pathetic, miserable failure and the murderer of hundreds of thousands of people. The man who brought Russia to ruin.

[Paul Vick @PaulVick138203]

Does it make you feel sick to the stomach thinking of all the journalists who played a big part in bringing down Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer celebrating and slapping each other on the back for a job well done for their paymasters?🤔
Repost after voting please.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Chris, there are rare occasions when an author dismantles his own argument before the reader has progressed beyond the opening paragraphs. This is one of them.

You readily concede that much of your reporting over recent months rested upon anonymous briefings, unnamed sources, private conversations and opinions offered only on condition that they could never be subjected to public scrutiny. You then ask your audience to accept that such material provides an accurate account of events. With respect, that is not evidence in any meaningful sense. It is an interpretation of events, constructed from assertions that the reader has no means of testing, verifying or challenging.

No serious observer disputes that confidential sources have a legitimate place in political journalism. They always have, and they always will. But there is a profound distinction between using anonymous sources to illuminate established facts and using them to construct an entire political narrative over many months. The former is responsible journalism; the latter risks becoming an exercise in reinforcing assumptions until they acquire the appearance of fact simply through constant repetition.

Indeed, your own article inadvertently exposes that very process. It repeatedly invites readers to accept what unnamed MPs supposedly believed, what unidentified advisers were allegedly saying, and what anonymous insiders privately thought. Such accounts may well have reflected genuine conversations, but they remain assertions rather than verifiable facts. There is an important distinction, and one that ought never to be blurred.

More striking still is the omission at the heart of your analysis. You devote thousands of words to explaining how Westminster concluded that Sir Keir Starmer's premiership had become untenable, yet you devote scarcely a sentence to examining whether the relentless stream of anonymous briefings and speculative commentary from sections of the political media played any part in creating that very outcome. That question surely deserves examination.

Nor do you grapple with the constitutional consequence of what follows. The British people elected a Government led by Sir Keir Starmer. Should he be replaced by another individual through internal parliamentary manoeuvring alone, the process may be constitutionally lawful, but that does not automatically confer political legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate. Those are two entirely different questions.

Many of those now defending such a transition were previously among the most vocal critics of Rishi Sunak for assuming office without seeking his own mandate from the country. Constitutional principles cannot be invoked when politically convenient and quietly abandoned when they become inconvenient.

History has a habit of punishing such inconsistency. If Andy Burnham were to become Prime Minister in these circumstances, I believe the pressure upon him to seek his own mandate from the British people would become irresistible. In my view, he would have little practical choice but to call a General Election within six to eight months. Whether Labour would survive such a contest is, of course, for the electorate to determine. My own judgement is that they would face a severe electoral reckoning, with the country returning either a Reform UK-led government or a hung Parliament.

Journalism should chronicle events, not become so intertwined with Westminster's internal conversations that it begins to mistake the mood of the political class for the settled will of the British people. That, in my view, is the fundamental weakness running through your analysis.

https://t.co/8vSBlsVlze

[распад и неуважение @VictorKvert2008]

“Lavrov has been Russia’s foreign minister since what feels like the time of Jesus Christ. And in all those years, not a single useful thing has come out of his mouth. So don’t pay too much attention to Mr. Lavrov.”

[IslamophobiaUK @uk_islamophobia]

Two Muslim men pulled an elderly couple and their grandson from a burning house in Leeds last Friday.

You probably didn’t hear about it.

Mohsin Qayyum. 22.
Mohammed Yusuf Iqbal. 20.

Both from Bradford.

They drove past the garden. They saw the fire. They ran straight in.

Sheila Robinson, the grandmother who was trapped inside, posted on social media:

"My family and I will be forever grateful to these young men."

Her granddaughter Kayla wrote:

"Drove past the garden, seen it, and ran straight in and made sure everyone was okay without a second thought."

Everyone got out. The house can be replaced. The family is alive.

Every outlet that covered it called them heroes.

They deserved every word.

But not one headline told you they were Muslim men.

We have seen this before.

Two weeks ago, a teacher was stabbed in the neck protecting his pupils from a knife in his Manchester classroom.

Maysum Abdullah. 27. Science teacher.

LBC named him a hero. So did the Independent, the Manchester Evening News, the Mirror, the Sun.

He ran towards the blade.

A hero in every paper. A Muslim man in none of them.

This is the pattern.

When a Muslim name appears in a crime, the faith leads the headline.

When a Muslim name appears in a rescue, it vanishes from the page.

Now look at who that erasure clears the path for.

Bradford, the same district these men come from, is now led by Reform as its largest party.

One of their candidates, Daniel Devaney, topped the poll in his ward after writing on Facebook that Muslims were "pure scum" and that he wanted to "blast [them] off the face of the earth."

He was not deselected. He was not suspended. He was elected.

They are loud about our religion when they want to call it a threat.

They are silent when that same religion sends two young men running into a fire.

The book they want to criticise is the same book that commands us to save a life.

"Whoever saves one life, it is as if he had saved all of mankind."
— Qur'an 5:32

Qayyum and Iqbal lived that verse on a Friday in Leeds.

Abdullah lived it in a Manchester classroom.

And the headlines recorded the act, but erased the faith that drove it.

When we are the suspect, our religion is the whole story.

When we are the rescuer, it is not worth a line.

Their names are Maysum Abdullah, Mohsin Qayyum, and Mohammed Yusuf Iqbal.

Muslim men.

Say both.

Sources first comment.

Report: https://t.co/D9amGp2yxO
Keep us alive: https://t.co/Z8H0Flg44Y
Substack: https://t.co/9x6sqmwMge
IG: @islamophobiauk

[Alethea Bernard @Tush27J]

Chris Mason thinks (and I use thinks very loosely) that it is offensive to say he or any other journalist played a part in bringing down Keir Starmer.

Chris Mason is an overpaid moron.
#BBCBreakfast #NewsWatch

[Graham Linehan @Glinner]

This is hilarious

[Mark G #SayNoToReform @TheLabourMark]

Keir Starmer is twice the man that Farage will ever hope of being. A good family man with a genuine heart that wants to help people. From his work as DPP and his work as prime minister, he’ll always be remembered in a good way. #Starmer #Keir #Labour