Starmer says he lost grip on Labour welfare revolt due to focus on foreign affairs
Not like he did a good job there either
Exclusive: Sir Keir Starmer unleashed ‘witch-hunt’ against British soldiers - "Sir Keir Starmer led a legal case that opened the door to hundreds of British soldiers being pursued for alleged war crimes, The Telegraph can disclose. The now Prime Minister worked free of charge alongside his close ally, Lord Hermer, now the Attorney General, and the now disgraced solicitor Phil Shiner on a human rights claim in 2007 that reshaped the law governing troops in war zones... The soldier, Sgt Richie Catterall, was wrongly pursued for 13 years before an independent judge ruled that he had acted in self-defence. The allegations cited by Sir Keir were found to be based in part on a “false document” intended to pin the blame on British troops. The prolonged investigations left Sgt Catterall suicidal and suffering from serious mental illness... “You are only supposed to be investigated once. I was investigated three times. I wasn’t well when I got back from Iraq, but they kept coming for me. Keir Starmer must share some of that responsibility.”... The disclosures about Sir Keir’s personal role have emerged with his Government facing fierce criticism from veterans over its decision to reopen the prospect of prosecutions relating to Northern Ireland. Last week, the Prime Minister condemned Donald Trump’s claims that British troops stayed away from the frontline in Afghanistan as “insulting and appalling”... However, Mr Mercer accused Sir Keir of holding an ideological hostility towards soldiers. In an article for The Telegraph, he says: “It’s clear Keir Starmer was personally involved in unleashing the witch hunt against British troops that I’ve spent the last 10 years dismantling. He believes in prosecuting British soldiers so much that he insisted on doing it for free.”"
Prime Minister Of United Kingdom Blocks Ban On First-Cousin Marriage - "British Prime Minister Keir Starmer refuses to support a ban on first-cousin marriage despite his own health secretary calling the practice unsafe. Conservative MP Richard Holden challenged Starmer during a debate to reconsider his opposition to the proposed ban, Fox News reported. Starmer dismissed the request... First-cousin marriage was banned in England for 1,000 years until Henry VIII changed the law in 1540. Data shows 43% of British Pakistanis in inner-city Bradford married first or second cousins in 2023, GB News reported. The rate exceeds 80% in parts of rural Pakistan. Independent MP Iqbal Mohamed opposed the bill, arguing it would stigmatize certain communities, The Commune reported. He called for education and genetic counseling instead of legislation."
Time to mock Alabama for Cousin Marriage
UK Bans Right-Wing Activist Eva Vlaar after Criticizing Keir Starmer - "Dutch right-wing political commentator and activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek has been banned from entering the United Kingdom just days after criticizing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on X. According to an official notice shared by Vlaardingerbroek, her UK ETA has been cancelled as of 13 January, citing that her presence in the country ‘is not considered to be conducive to the public good.’ There is no right of appeal against the decision. On 9 January, Vlaardingerbroek shared a post reacting to Starmer’s claim that the British government’s crackdown on X is driven by ‘women’s safety’. ‘Keir Starmer wants to crack down on X under the pretense of “women’s safety”, whilst he’s the one allowing the ongoing rape and killing of British girls by migrant rape gangs,’ the post said, accusing Starmer of failing to take meaningful action against illegal and mass migration and its alleged impact on public safety in the UK. In an exclusive appearance on Steve Bannon’s War Room, Vlaardingerbroek shared details about what she described as contradictions in the case against her. She said she had not even applied for a visa to the UK, adding that the last time she travelled to the country was in September, when she participated in Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom march. She added that she had planned to visit again in May, but following the entry ban, she would have to reassess her plans. ‘I guess my point that the UK is no longer a free country has been indisputably proven,’ Vlaardingerbroek wrote in a post on her Instagram account. The move by the Starmer government is already having repercussions in Dutch domestic politics and internationally as well. Lidewij de Vos, a right-wing politician from Forum for Democracy (FvD), called the entry ban an ‘extremely worrying development’, sharing a series of parliamentary questions sent to Foreign Minister David van Weel and advocating diplomatic action against the UK."
Time to let in more Muslim terrorists
Reform UK politicians should be barred from speaking on campus, say 35% of students - "While 69% of students told the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) survey that universities should “never limit free speech”, similar numbers also supported speaking bans on specific political parties... while 61% said that academics “should be free to teach or research whatever they want”, 64% also agreed that “protection from discrimination and ensuring the dignity of minorities could be more important than unlimited freedom of expression”. In a later question, 38% said academics who used “offensive material” in teaching should be fired."
To fight "Fascism", they need to ban unapproved political parties, and go a step further and censor the "Far Right"
The cope is that "hate speech" is not free speech
Justice Jackson’s History of Shilling for the Deep State - "President Joe Biden’s decision to limit his Supreme Court nominees to black women was widely criticized as a product of DEI-mania, but the ensuing racial controversy was a red herring, a political sleight of hand, designed to distract Americans from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s true purpose on the bench: to protect, preserve, and defend the deep state from the constraints of the Constitution. The fallout from the nomination was familiar; CNN’s opinion pages called Republican Senators, including Tom Cotton (R-AR), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Ted Cruz (R-TX), “racist and sexist” for opposing Jackson; Georgetown Law Professor Ilya Shapiro was suspended for stating that the most qualified candidate was an Indian man, not a black woman; Al Sharpton threw his support behind President Biden... the Supreme Court considered whether the President of the United States has the power to remove members of the Executive Branch. The Constitution’s Vesting Clause, which states that the “executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” offers an unequivocal answer. But Jackson, assuming her role as a corporatist advocate on a government salary, acted as the mouthpiece for those opposed to accountability for the bureaucracy that lives off the taxpayers’ wages. She warned of “the danger of allowing…the President to actually control the transportation board and potentially the Federal Reserve and all these other independent agencies.” Jackson, never known for speaking concisely or deliberately (in oral arguments, she speaks 50 percent more than any of her fellow colleagues and more than Justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas combined) waxed longingly for a nation with no presidential control over the executive branch... In the first Trump administration, Jackson, then a District Court Judge, overturned four executive orders (numbers 13837, 13836, 13839, and 13957) that sought to rein in the power of the nearly three million federal employees who effectively inhabit permanent jobs. Most notably, in 2020, she invalidated President Trump’s order “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service.” In March 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, which considered the Biden administration’s collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans during the Covid response. There, Justice Jackson stated that her “biggest concern” was that an injunction would result in “the First Amendment hamstringing the Government.” Earlier this year, Justice Barrett chastised Justice Jackson as “embracing an imperial Judiciary” after Justice Jackson voted to increase federal courts’ power to issue nationwide injunctions. Jackson’s defense of the unelected cabal that dominates American life is not a mere issue of legalese; it animates the chief question of the second Trump administration: does the commander-in-chief control the Executive Branch? The Constitution tells us that he should, but in practice, entrenched interests threaten that governmental structure. Those who believe that this gives the president too much power might consider an alternate path to shredding the Constitution, e.g. abolishing all these rogue agencies to reduce and contain executive power itself. Jackson’s verbose monologues, often disguised as questions, reveal that she understands the importance of this struggle despite her cognitive limitations. She may not be able to define a woman, but she knows that her benefactors depend on her denying the President from obtaining “actual control” over the agencies that the Constitution designates to his realm."
SALT Mines: New York State of Decline - "A review of the governance of New York State shows the punishingly high state and local taxes paid by Empire State residents benefit wasteful and corrupt bureaucracies. Increasing the SALT deduction would further subsidize New York’s dysfunction. Spreading the costs across the country would encourage more graft, ultimately leaving its residents no better off and with fewer alternatives to flee to. New York’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposal calls for a record $254 billion in spending, an 8.3% increase from the 2024 level. This not only far exceeds inflation but also comes at a time when the state’s population is still below its peak in 2020, meaning the government is not having to provide services to a surging number of citizens. In other words, business is booming for New York’s bureaucrats and state beneficiaries. Contrasting New York’s budget with that of Florida is instructive. Both states have a mix of wealthy and blue-collar areas, both have big cities with significant demographic diversity, and they have the second and third largest state populations in the country. In 2000, New York State spending per capita was already 30% higher than Florida. By 2024, New York spent 133% more per capita than Florida. The results of these different budgetary approaches have been stark. From 2000 to 2024, New York’s population grew 4.5%, while Florida’s grew 45.6% – a tenfold difference. Tax-and-spend policies stifle private investment and jobs, encouraging residents to leave for better opportunities elsewhere. It is not a coincidence that New Yorkers are especially likely to move to Florida. New York’s attempt to use corporate welfare to cover its high taxes has been a dismal failure. State and local subsidies now exceed $10 billion per year, much of which involves allowing selected businesses to dodge taxes while others pay the full price. In this way it mimics how the SALT deduction effects federal taxes: those who get to use the deduction defray their tax share onto others. Such a dramatic difference in spending trends does not happen by chance, but rather because of specific choices by elected officials... New York’s Medicaid spending per capita has grown much more rapidly than Florida’s. For perspective, in 2024 New York spent nearly as much per capita on Medicaid ($4,551) as Florida did for its entire state budget ($5,076). New York’s Medicaid spending per capita is more than three times Florida’s. While the choice to expand Medicaid eligibility was important, New York’s per capita Medicaid costs are the highest in the country due to a multitude of questionable policies. These include:
Offering “emergency” medical coverage for 480,000 illegal immigrants. (While this is not technically eligible for federal cost-sharing, the fungibility of money means that federal handouts to states enable these state-level decisions).
Maximizing eligibility to the point where 44% of New Yorkers use Medicaid, the highest in the nation by seven points. Those earning up to two and a half times the poverty level are eligible for zero-premium coverage in New York.
Aggressively funding at-home health work, which is now the largest occupation in the state and continuing to grow rapidly. An important factor is the unionization of such workers, meaning that the federal government is subsidizing a key political ally for Albany’s incumbents.
Recklessly increasing both federal and state spending on Medicaid since the start of Gov. Kathy Hochul’s time in office.
There is no inherent reason why New York must spend exceptional amounts of tax dollars on Medicaid. Officials are consciously extending welfare benefits (of questionable value) to as many people as possible... Another major spending category is K-12 public schools, affecting taxes at state and local levels. New York’s per-student spending is the highest in the nation, including an average of $35,000 per student this year. A handful of school districts exceed $100,000 per student, and low-density Hamilton County will spend over $69,000 per student. (Notably, much lower-density counties in western states manage to avoid such sky-high costs). Public school spending is driven by the demands of politically powerful teachers’ unions... higher education spending has produced worse outcomes. In 2022, New York’s 4th graders ranked 36th in the nation in reading and 46th in the nation in math. Meanwhile, Florida spends about $13,000 per student and its 4th graders rank 3rd in the nation in reading and 4th in the nation in math"
Time to mock red states again
Why London feels lawless - "the homicide rate is a poor indicator of how safe Londoners feel... What people worry far more about is crimes which they are likely to be victims of. There were 837,826 ‘victim based’ crimes recorded by the Metropolitan police in 2025. These crimes include robberies, phone snatching, sexual assaults and rapes. Such victim-based crimes have soared in London in recent years. A decade ago, in 2015-16, there were 16,147 recorded sexual offences. Last year saw the Met receive reports of 27,694 such offences, and year-on-year reported rapes are up somewhere between 8 per cent and 12 per cent. Phone theft too is at endemic levels, with 117,211 stolen handsets reported to the Met last year. This morning Rowley was insistent that phone theft at least is falling, and I understand the official internal data supports this. The Met Commissioner also tried to encourage listeners to ignore reported crime in favour of ‘crime surveys’ which try to estimate the overall level of crime. Many politicians and senior police officers prefer these figures, perhaps because they have generally shown that crime is falling. The Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW) has a number of weaknesses, not least that it tends to ‘oversample’ from low crime areas and ‘undersample’ from high crime areas. Even then, it has shown some crimes becoming dramatically more prevalent, with ‘selected knife offences’ up from 26,370 ten years ago to 53,047 in 2024-25. The Met doesn’t police all of London. British Transport Police are responsible for mainline trains terminating in the capital, and for the underground network. Their last annual report described ‘an overall challenging environment of increasing crimes ranging from higher reports of anti-social behaviour to our highest ever number of homicides’. That report also states that sexual offences increased by 10 per cent compared to the previous year. Meanwhile the City of London Police, responsible for the Square Mile, reported an increase in thefts, violence, public disorder, criminal damage, sexual offences and robberies. Of course, whether crime is rising or falling is not the only measure of whether London, or Britain is becoming lawless. We also want the police to catch criminals, gather evidence and bring them before a court. Unfortunately the Met, like police forces across the country, have become really bad at this. Since 2013, the Home Office has reported ‘crime outcomes’ data. In that first report, we learned that almost 22 per cent of crimes resulted in either a charge or a caution. That is to say that almost 80 per cent of crimes were effectively going unpunished. That statistic was bad enough, but things have become far worse since 2013. According to last year’s crime outcomes data, a mere 6.3 per cent of crimes with a victim resulted in someone being charged. The picture for the Met, unfortunately for Rowley is even worse. The force doesn’t publish data in quite the same format, but I discovered that of the 837,826 victim-based offences they recorded last year, 54,945 (6.6 per cent) were recorded as a ‘positive outcome’. This includes charges, cautions, offences ‘taken into consideration’, penalty notices and community resolutions. I was unable to establish the charge rate, but it seems to be well below the national average. It is almost certainly much lower than that achieved by City of London Police, who report 18.5 per cent of crimes with positive outcomes in their most recent report. The impact this failure has on people’s sense of safety, and their belief that London is lawless can’t be overstated. Almost all crimes with a victim do not result in someone being charged. No wonder people feel their capital is lawless. The Met Commissioner should take another look at the ‘facts and evidence’ before gaslighting Londoners again."
Maybe people aren't reporting phone theft anymore because it's useless to
Astronaut’s Wife Admits to Lying About Spouse Committing First Crime in Space - "Summer Heather Worden, the ex-wife of NASA astronaut Anne McClain, pleaded guilty to lying to law enforcement after she previously accused McClain of committing the first crime in outer space... Worden, 50, a resident of Sedgwick County, Kan., claimed McClain guessed the password for her bank account and "illegally accessed" it while she was in the International Space Station in July 2019, federal prosecutors say. "However, Worden had actually opened the account in April 2018. Both parties had accessed it until January 2019 when Worden changed the credentials. The investigation revealed Worden had granted her spouse access to her bank records from at least 2015, including her login credentials," the release from the DA's office continued."
RealClearPolling on X - "🔴Republican Party Favorability Favorable: 38.2% Unfavorable: 52.5%
🔵Democratic Party Favorability Favorable: 32.5% Unfavorable: 56.2%"
Even with all the media gaslighting, the Democratic Party is less popular
AITA - Malay colleagues kick up a fuss when non-halal ppl uses 'their' pantry : r/SingaporeRaw - "I am new to the floor. I went to the pantry to eat my lunch. The malays keep diao me. Aft awhile, their DD came to me and ask me not to use 'their' pantry. I asked her to explain what she mean by 'their', she refuse. Just keep saying not for me, asks me to be more sensitive. I simply told her, I don't see any written signs and what not about the specified uses of this pantry, no official approval also. Turns out, they(the malays) in my office has annexed that pantry and 2 toilets to be "halal pantry/toilets". Even at group events, doesn't matter food halal or not, they will only eat the food bought by their own kind. I personally don't see a problem going against their own self-established rules, as I am not breaking company rules.
Edit: lol, the pantry has 2 microwaves, 1 labelled halal, the other non-halal. The non-halal wasn't plugged in. Someone went to plug it in and use it. Now it's plugged out, and there's an "out of order" sticker on it 🤣"
2018 Grinch has no edge. He’s got no bite. He’s... - " 2018 Grinch has no edge. He’s got no bite. He’s not even that much of an asshole. He’s just a sassy gay furry with unusually nice teeth despite his famous theme song declaring otherwise. 1966 Grinch? Now that was a mean, scary bastard. He was a crusty old fuck who hated society so much that he only came off his shitty frozen mountain to commit crimes and terrorism out of spite. Bennyhoo Cumberland Grinch comes down from his mountain to buy groceries. You can round the edges off a character to make them more “relatable” or whatever, but you also run the risk of losing what defined them in the first place. The end result is bland and generic. 2018 Grinch is a reflection of modern society’s rejection of real character flaws in the interest of being “unproblematic” and in this essay i will"
"What was your opinion on the Jim Carrey grinch?"
"Jim Carrey Grinch said bitch, ate glass and threw a whole child in the garbage. He is an absolute champ and the only rightful heir to the throne."
What Power Rangers actors should I avoid meeting? : r/powerrangers - "Personal Experiences:
Worst:
-Steve Cardenas "Will that be cash or card"? First words out of his mouth in front of children. Great look.
-ASJ: made unfavorable comments about JDF on a panel with a room full of kids and fans alike. Didn't make himself look good doing that IMO. (Before JDF passed)
-WEJ: same con as ASJ same type of comments about JDF. Just disparaging remarks when it wasn't necessary.
-Michael Copon: looked like he couldn't care less to be there. Which made me wonder why even bother? Quick answer, money.
I met JDF 11x never once said or did anything that insinuated anything about a co-star. Was the best with the kids, great to his fans. Stayed until the last fan and ALWAYS gave you more than what you paid for.
Bulk & Skull are AMAZING! The absolute nicest people I've ever met a con. Came out from the booth hugged my entire family, talked to us like friends we hadn't seen in awhile. 1000% recommend."
"When I was 12, I was hospitalized for a few days. One day, one of the nurses came in and stated that the "power rangers" were here, and if I would like to meet any of them. My mom told nurse "He really likes the white one." A few minutes later, in walks some guy in a white ranger costume. He and I talk a little bit, and we take a picture. Then he takes off his mask - revealing that it was Jason David Frank himself. To this day, I have great respect for him for coming by."
What Power Rangers actors should I avoid meeting? : r/powerrangers - "even some of the worst ones will put on a smile for a convention. There are a few, though, that do it for the fans. Some guests don't charge anything to come in, sign for free, etc. because they genuinely enjoy the interactions."
What Power Rangers actors should I avoid meeting? : r/powerrangers - "they're ALL there for money, bud. not a single one of them is there to meet fans and hear stories about your childhood, they're just better at pretending than the other ones"
"Next you’ll say the stripper isn’t really interested in hearing me complain about work"
"Both things can be true. At my job, i'm there for the money. I show up because I want to get paid, not because I care about the company. I'd happily never go there again if I didn't have to. That doesn't mean the customers I have I'm all apathetic too. Nasty entitled ones? I do the bare minimum. Friendly and understanding people? I go out of my way, even beyond my basic obligations to try and help them even with stuff that isn't directly my companies responsibility Because i'm empathetic to their situations and genuinely want to make them happy. It can be the same for actors at conventions. They're there for the money and they know they have to make time for fans. But, the ones ONLY there for the money will focus on the money and getting you in and out as fast as possible. The ones who genuinely give a shit about and appreciate their fans, will make time for them and show interest. Johnny Yong Bosch for example goes out of his way with fans and tries to make sure they get a great experience because he genuinely appreciates them, even though he's there for the income."
Scientists are developing artificial blood that could save lives in emergencies
The bizarre reason Greenland was colonized by Denmark - "Canada was colonized in search of land and furs. South America was colonized in search of precious metals. But Greenland was colonized because some missionaries thought the island was home to a lost world of medieval Vikings who needed to be converted to Lutheranism"
The survival of the left - "The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive. The academic world is the natural habitat of half-baked ideas, except for those fields in which there are decisive tests, such as science, mathematics, engineering, medicine;and athletics. In all these fields, in their differing ways, there comes a time when you must either put up or shut up. It should not be surprising that all of these fields are notable exceptions to the complete domination by the left on campuses across the country. In the humanities, for example, the test of deconstructionism is not whether it can produce any tangible results but whether it remains in vogue. So long as it does, professors skilled in its verbal sleight-of-hand can expect to continue to receive six-figure salaries. You might think that the collapse of communism throughout Eastern Europe would be considered a decisive failure for Marxism, but academic Marxists in America are utterly undaunted. Their paychecks and their tenure are unaffected. Their theories continue to flourish in the classrooms and their journals continue to litter the library shelves. Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it. Even countries that were once more prosperous than their neighbors have found themselves much poorer than their neighbors after just one generation of socialistic policies. Whether these neighboring countries were Ghana and the Ivory Coast or Burma and Thailand, it has been the same story around the world."
Thomas Sowell from 1997
